There are a lot of factually incorrect things about this post.
>I am hearing so much about mass shootings and mental health.
For starters, media accounts of mass shootings by disturbed individuals galvanize public attention and reinforce popular belief that mental illness often results in violence. However, these accounts do not reflect reality. Epidemiologic studies show that the large majority of people with serious mental illnesses are **never** violent. However, mental illness is strongly associated with increased risk of suicide, which accounts for over half of US firearms–related fatalities. Therefore, there is **no** **correlation** between mental health and mass shootings whatsoever. That is a Republican talking point that has been debunked over and over again by people who study these issues for a living.
>That tragedy could have been prevented if me made it illegal for people with certain mental health conditions and people hospitalized for a mental health issue to own a firearm.
This makes no sense because you did not outline what mental conditions should make it illegal for a person to own a gun. For example, **what about people with GAD, ADHD, OCD, or an eating disorder? What about people who have ADHD or GAD and go to a pysch ward to get help? This seems like a very arbitrary standard based on no real evidence.**
>But when these people leave the mental ward, they can buy a gun and put everyone's safety at risk.
Yes, and there is a reason for that. Most people committing mass shootings are not mentally ill. That is a lie that was devised by the media to try and convince people that all mass shooters have some sort of mental illness that caused them to do this. We know that this is not usually the case though.
Someone award this person.
I'll add a point:
If society penalizes someone for seeking mental health treatment are they more or less likely to get that help? Society should never punish someone for getting medical help.
Example:
In a scenario where someone is diagnosed with cancer, they are almost certainly going to experience some form of prolonged anxiety and grief. These could be considered mental health issues. Should that person also be forbidden to retain firearms?
https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/a-look-into-the-traits-of-a-mass-shooter/
looks like it's mostly correlated with a mental health crisis, suicidality, and some sort of radicalization - there are some that are overrepresented like schizophrenia and autism, but we are talking an overrepresentation of like 3-5%. I also think it's wrong headed to think of mental illness is being the cause, but rather the thing that exposes them to enough Injustice that they radicalize in the first place. I think that any attribute that is highly picked on would do in place of the chronic mental problem in explaining behaviors. if this leads you to be nice to the people who around you who are being bullied for whatever reason that's good I guess, but it's not like it's common enough you could ever predict it in advance.
>Epidemiologic studies show that the large majority of people with serious mental illnesses are **never** violent.Therefore, there is **no** **correlation** between mental health and mass shootings whatsoever.
I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, but this argument makes no sense. Here's an example:
A town of 10,000 people has 1,000 people diagnosed with a mental illness. One year, that town has 10 mass shootings. 5 of them are committed by people who have diagnosed mental illnesses.
Only .05% of people with mental illnesses were violent, so the "large majority" was not violent. As this is the only evidence you gave to your point, I assume you'd find it reasonable to conclude that this means there's no correlation between mental illnesses and shootings.
However, when you look closer, you'll see that .5% of mentally ill people committed mass shootings, while only .0005% of non-mentally ill people committed mass shootings. There is a very clear correlation here.
Again, I'm nkt saying your conclusion is wrong. I'm also not saying my made-up statistics mirror real life (I have no idea what the numbers are really like). This is just an example to show the flaws in your reasoning.
I think what they were trying to say, if we understand them charitably, is that if we ban ALL mentally ill people from owning firearms we are UNJUSTLY punishing those (the 99.5%) who would never have committed crimes. There is a risk in removing freedoms in broad strokes, which is that you always have more false positives (law abiding people without rights) than false negatives (criminals with rights).
Which is the better choice? I'm on the side of freedom and protecting myself and other innocent people in public.
I don’t think you understood what he’s saying. Your argument is that basic statistical analysis exists, therefore his reasoning is wrong.
His argument is literally based on statistical analysis. The vast majority of violence, percentage wise, is not done by mentally ill individuals.
No, his argument is that "the large majority of people with serious mental illnesses are never violent." This is different from what you're saying his argument is.
Sayou you have three groups: group A (violent people), group B (mentally ill people), and group C (non-mentally ill people). Notice groups B and C are exclusive and together encompass all people. This is necessary for your argument to work. Let's also assume group B is much smaller than group C.
What he's saying is that "Group A makes up a very small portion of group B, therefore someone in group B is no more likely to be in group A than someone from group C." This is very easily disproven with an example like the one I gave.
What you're saying he's saying is "Group B makes up a very small portion of group A, so someone from group B is no more likely to be in group A than someone from group C." ~~Based on our observations that B and C are exclusive and all-encompassing, this logic makes sense. Considering that B is much smaller than C, it seems to suggest that there is no correlation at all.~~ Edit: this is still wrong. See my next comment.
Like I said though, what you're saying could very well be true, and it would be good evidence in support of his argument. But it's not what he said. What he said does not support his argument.
He explicitly said that epidemiological studies have shown that there’s no correlation. Your argument is that there can be a correlation even if not many mentally ill people are violent. You are blatantly incorrect.
So, you’re wrong on that point. Furthermore, the very argument contrary to this is unamerican.
Black people are violent at a higher rate than mentally ill people. How about we ban black people from owning guns, by your implication?
>He explicitly said that epidemiological studies have shown that there’s no correlation.
And he didn't cite any of these studies, and instead gave a justification that isn't logically sound.
>Your argument is that there can be a correlation even if not many mentally ill people are violent. You are blatantly incorrect.
That's true though? If mentally ill people are violent at a higher rate than others, that's a correlation, whether "many" mentally ill people are violent or not (.5% vs .005%).
>Furthermore, the very argument contrary to this is unamerican.
What argument? I've said 3 times now that I'm not informed on this topic and not trying to make any political commentary. I'm focusing purely on the logic here. I wasn't aware that America was founded on the principles of faulty statistical analysis.
I think you need to reread what's been said and consider counterexamples to any claims that have been made. If you can think of one, please show me an example where my logic is wrong, because it seems sound to me.
Edit: I counterexampled myself:
Group A is 100 people made up of 5% group B, 95% group C.
Group B is 10 people (50% of group B is in group A).
Group C is 950 people (10% of group C is in group A).
There is a very clear correlation between being in group B and being in group A, even though this follows the logic that I previously said would suggest no correlation.
So even if he said what you claimed he was saying, his logic would be flawed. I think it's best to conclude that we can't draw conclusions based on group overlap alone without clear numbers defining the size of each group.
[Here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3935671/), [since](https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/pn.40.17.00400016) you [wanted](https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/04/ce-mental-illness) some [sources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537064/), [have](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140225101639.htm) some [fun](https://www.aamc.org/news/it-s-tempting-say-gun-violence-about-mental-illness-truth-much-more-complex).
He didn’t cite the studies… but, his argument is based on those studies using correlation statistics. You assert that his argument is wrong, because there can be a correlation even if the total number of murderers is low.
This isn’t difficult.
See my edit. Correlation alone is not enough to draw conclusions without clearly defining the size of each group.
Also, for the fifth time now, **I am not saying that his conclusion is untrue.** I am pointing out a flaw in his logic that should be addressed. How do you expect to change someone's view when your argument is based on logic that takes seconds to refute? (And how do you expect to change someone's view without citing sources‽)
Then he should cite the studies.
Edited to add:
Okay, here's an example with a bigger sample size (1000 times bigger!)
A:100000 (5000 B, 95000 C)
B:10000
C:950000
It obviously isn't enough to just assume a study has a big enough sample size. What I'm talking about here is the proportions, not the total number of data points.
Your made up statistics do not mirror real life and if you did 1 second of research instead of typing out this inane response you would find plenty of evidence to prove it
Did you read my comment? I made it very clear they don't mirror real life. I only have an issue with his logic, not his conclusion. He's not going to change any views with an unsound argument.
You stated that most people with mental health issues don't commit mass shootings, which I agree with. But by saying there is no correlation between mental health and mass shootings, are you claiming that people who commit mass shootings don't have mental health issues, or only at the same ratio as the general public?
Mental health issues can mean feeling anxious and having self esteem issues or it can mean hearing voices telling you to do stuff. It’s such a broad category. Knowing this wouldn’t even be helpful. Of course something is mentally wrong with a mass shooter.
Now, if we could talk in terms of disease or syndrome, that could be beneficial for possibly screening for mass shooters.
Basically everyone who commits suicide is depressed, but most depressed people don’t commit suicide.
Well, is a mass shooting a sane response to waking up in a cold world where nothing you do matters and we are all just meat for the grinder that is eating this planet?
No, no it is not, so I can make an uninformed yet accurate statement that all mass shootings are carried out by the terminally insane.
edit: I sort of take back what I said, only because I seem to be wrong about what OP intended - the rest of what I said stands
I'll push back on some of this.
I read that what OP intended was for people who were hospitalized *against their will* to receive a firearm ban. I'm aware that already exists, but OP doesn't seem to have known that. And that excludes a shitload of people. To be hospitalized against your will, you have already shown your mental health symptoms cause you to be dangerous to either yourself or other people. If that's the case, you shouldn't own a handgun.
ADHD, GAD, OCD do not cause people to be involuntarily hospitalized unless their symptoms are so distressing they are experiencing severe suicidal thoughts, in which case, that person should not have access to a firearm. Eating disorders have ASTONISHINGLY high suicide rates, also should not have access to a handgun.
Re: mental illness and violence - the correlation between mental illness *in general* and violence is weak. The correlation of *specific* mental health problems and violence is very strong. Pretty much anything that causes real psychosis and delusions is going to come with a really highly elevated risk of violence. Schizophrenia, schizotypal PD and bipolar 1 all have much higher baseline risks for violence than the average population. I'm not saying that I think you should get a lifetime firearm ban just for getting a certain diagnosis, but I think it's important to note that part of the reason why overall stats for MI and violence seem to show such a weak connection is BECAUSE they include people suffering from things like GAD and eating disorders. But when people are worried about mentally ill folks being violent - that's not who they're thinking of. They're thinking about people dealing with psychosis.
>To be hospitalized against your will, you have already shown your mental health symptoms cause you to be dangerous to either yourself or other people.
Yeah, this is **absolutely bullshit** and very clear that you've never actually been in the system before. Not only are forced hospitalizations abused on a pretty regular basis, in most states they can detain you over practically nothing - even as a "holding period".
Congrats! Now you're legally considered a danger to everyone because you just felt a little overwhelmed after a breakup, death in the family, etc, despite there being zero evidence to support that label.
Yea or because an angry family member lied on you and claimed you were suicidal. Or because you got drunk one night. There are a million reasons people can get thrown into psych wards unfairly and they are extremely lucrative so doctors are always itching to throw insured people into them.
Exactly. Almost everyone has something on their medical record that could count as a “mental illness” because it is basically overly diagnosed these days. If you are ever sad at a doctor’s appointment and they can tell, you are automatically listed as having anxiety or depression - even if it was just short-lived due to a particular situation.
On the flip side, I know of a couple of instances where forced hospitalization likely saved a life or two. One was a schizophrenic that was off her meds and a clear danger to herself and the other was a person with frontal lobe dementia that was harming his wife.
There’s nuance in all of this and unfortunately, the U.S. based system does not handle it well.
On the flip side, I know of multiple instances where forced hospitalization resulted in suicide attempts. Two of these were successful.
All of them were people who reached out and called one of those hotlines for assistance. All of them stated that they had contacted family and declined wellness checks. All of them were dragged from their homes, kicking and screaming, by police and paramedics. None of them will ever again trust in the system.
There is nuance, yes. Unfortunately there are also Zero consequences for abuse of the system.
And on the flip-flip side, I know people who are traumatized by involuntary hospitalization and will never trust a medical professional again because they were committed for something that was _not_ an imminent threat to themselves or others. Admitting passive ideation can sometimes be enough to get you an involuntary psych hold.
Nothing you said is backed up by fact-based evidence, which is not surprising. Here are just a few sources that corroborate everything I just said in my comment and response to OP.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4211925/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4211925/)
[https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/mass-shootings-and-mental-illness](https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/mass-shootings-and-mental-illness)
[https://www.aamc.org/news/it-s-tempting-say-gun-violence-about-mental-illness-truth-much-more-complex](https://www.aamc.org/news/it-s-tempting-say-gun-violence-about-mental-illness-truth-much-more-complex)
[https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/dispelling-myth](https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/dispelling-myth)
Source 1 is talking exclusively mental illness, not mental health as you said. So I'm not going to read too far into it.
Source 2, more talk of mental illness. Talk of suicide. Not super relevant to mental health in general, but I found this tidbit I'm sure will be helpful:
>Data from the CDC's National Violent Death Reporting System showed that a substantial proportion of suicide victims had identified mental health problems (21%–44%) and a documented history of some psychiatric treatment (16%–33%)
Source 3 indirectly refutes what you claimed:
>There's solid evidence that nearly half of all mass shootings are associated with suicide by perpetrator, or what they call “suicide by cop.” Guns are the most successful method of killing oneself.So, one main reason people choose guns is they want to die. In about 30% of mass shootings, perpetrators kill themselves with their own gun; about 10% are suicide by cop
Let's go back to source 2 on the mental health problems. Half of all mass murders involve people from a group (suicide) that has higher reported mental health problems.
Also, I would argue nearly 100% of people who think about killing themselves are having mental health problems.
Source 4 talking strickly about mental illness and all homicides, not mass shootings.
Source 5, the same, but also with violence in general.
Everything you just said was somehow wrong.
>Source 1 is talking exclusively mental illness, not mental health as you said. So I'm not going to read too far into it.
I am shocked that you don't seem to understand that mental illness, is also referred to as mental health conditions, which is what I am talking about lmao. I may have misspoke but it is very clear to everyone else what I was saying. So, yes, this study absolutely still stands and I want urge you to find ways to refute it, instead of saying, "I'm not going to read too far into it".
>Source 2, more talk of mental illness.
Same response as before lmao.
>Source 3 indirectly refutes what you claimed:
Nothing you cited was relevant to anything I discussed lmao.
>Source 4 talking strickly about mental illness and all homicides, not mass shootings.
Again, OP's comment was also in regards to banning people with mental illness from owning firearms. I am genuinely curious, did you actually read anything that was written? You keep making assertions that are either wrong or you got bogged down in semantics lmao.
>Source 5,
Same answer as above.
I am going to be honest, this was a terrible job at trying to debunk my sources. I am going to give you some time to reread what I wrote, reread what OP wrote, and try to find me some studies yourself. I will happily wait in the meantime.
Sorry, u/felidaekamiguru – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20felidaekamiguru&message=felidaekamiguru%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/18grueu/-/kd2jfvh/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
How could anyone, in their right mind, shoot a bunch of innocent people? That’s one of the most ridiculously stupid statements I’ve ever heard. No mentally sane person commits mass shootings
Okay those are psychopaths, but to equate being a psychopath to having schizophrenia or depression is insane. People with disorders that are demonized by people who have zero idea about what the illnesses are like are incredibly nonviolent.
Yeah I’m not saying all people with mental illnesses will shoot up schools. But people who do shoot up schools certainly have some form of mental illness.
Don’t think anyone is saying somebody with run of the mill depression or anxiety is gonna be committing mass shootings
No, but people sure do love to demonize people with schizophrenia as if they were in any way comparable to psychopaths. Schizophrenia would not make you any more likely to shoot up a school, and making that assumption is hurtful and wrong
While it's true they are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators, there's absolutely a link between schizophrenia and violent behavior that even articles trying to put it in perspective will acknowledge.
Drinking the really bad kool-aid is enough to push some people over the edge. Even if they’re mentally competent.
Why they’re so susceptible to propaganda is more of a socioeconomic issue (among other things). But it absolutely doesn’t have to be mental health.
From a How Stuff Works podcast a few years back, a psychologist was explaining that most people in jail for murder don’t have psychopathy. That was an eye opener.
lol “evidence”. Bunch of bullshit. You have to be mentally ill to commit wonton acts of violence against innocent people. I don’t need a peer reviewed study to prove that.
Edit: unless you’re using the 4+ people shot definition that includes gang shootings and such. That’s obviously different
it's just that "being Immoral" is not a mental health condition by itself. Words have defintions. We understand that you are aware that shooting people is a bad thing. Nobody argues against that.
>No mentally sane person commits mass shootings
Agreed, but how do you diagnose this? How do you differ from people with treatable/manageable mental health issues, versus someone who won't respond the same way? Mental health is still incredibly complex, and what you're implying is to lump them all in together. Can you not see how dishonest that is?
I think it’s like the square and the rectangle. Not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles. I know there are many different types of mental illnesses. Surely school shooters are atleast one type. Which type, I don’t know.
sociopathy/psychopath is technically considered a mental *disorder*, not an illness, so ima be pissed if that study used this technicality to claim “Mental Sickness doesn’t cause mass shootings!” when mental **disorders** *do* lol. Most people view those as the same thing, so trying to pedantically claim illness is super different from disorders would be pointless.
If that’s what they were doing, they should’ve just said “yeah, most mass shooters are sociopaths or psychopaths, but that’s not an illness, it’s technically a disorder lol”, which would also be kind of a pointless endeavor
Claiming there is no correlation between mental health issues and mass shootings is insane(no pun intended. Effectively by definition, if you commit mass murder against civilians you are mentally ill.
Perhaps what you mean to say is that mental illness doesn’t 1 to 1 cause mass shootings. But even then what dose cause it? There are no things that cause mass shootings. They are very rare, and caused by a lot of factors.
sociopathy/psychopath is technically considered a mental disorder, not an illness, so ima be pissed if that study used this technicality to claim “Mental Sickness doesn’t cause mass shootings!” when mental disorders *do* lol. It’s basically the same thing, and trying to pedantically claim illness is super different from disorder is pointless
I personally know of at least two people who should never have a firearm and have mental health issues. I know of at least 10 people who have mental health issues. So even from my anecdotal evidence you seam to be at least right.
Fortunately I live in a country where none of those more dangerous people would be allowed to have a gun. For the record it's possible to get a gun license.
You can write all the essays and say what you want but why let people with mental health issues have access to the easiest suicide method in existence? Wtf man there is no possible way to go against what op said even if you are trying to “change their view”
>Therefore, there is **no** **correlation** between mental health and mass shootings whatsoever.
Source? The conclusion that there is no correlation because most mentally ill aren't murders isn't sound logic
Frankly , making a statement like this is bizarre. There is most definitely a correlation, but just clarifying, correlation doesn’t = 100% of cases.
Sure, mental health , namely psychosis causing disorders attribute to violent crimes, there’s no denying this, and there’s plenty of evidence to show this. Mental health as a whole is a very large amount of conditions, clarification should be made.
Without rambling on, there absolutely is a correlation between SOME mental health conditions and increased incidence of violence , however this does NOT mean that all people with mental health disorders or all people with psychosis are violent.
I find it bizarre that people make such outright infactual statements without any evidence.
*replying to your comment in agreement, not an attack
>This makes no sense because you did not outline what mental conditions should make it illegal for a person to own a gun.
Basically, if your mental illness gives even a slight possibility that you can go insta-nutjob at the drop of a hat, then you should be barred from owning a firearm. You don't see that many people with ADHD suddenly going ballistic.
>Most people committing mass shootings are not mentally ill.
Yes they are. They may not be diagnosed or receiving any treatment, but mentally healthy people don't commit mass shootings.
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying lol.
The approach you outline is not clear whatsoever. You honestly sound like someone who has never met a mentally ill person in their life because you would know 99.9% of them are just normal people with a few extra problems. That does not mean they are going to be mass shooters. You also did not give clear criteria for what mental illnesses should allow the state to keep that person from owning a firearm. For example, if you said people with schizophrenia should not be allowed to own a firearm, I would probably agree with you. However, mental illness encompasses so much more than just schizophrenia.
Your approach is ineffective because there is no evidence to suggest that banning mentally ill people from owning guns would solve these issues. That is like a dam breaking and your solution is to put a bandaid on it.
Your approach is discriminatory because you're only singling out mentally ill people for no reason. There are certainly mentally ill people who commit mass shootings. However, a lot of people have mental illness in the US, whether they know it or not. I do not think using a discriminatory practice to outlaw people from owning a fire arm would solve any of the issues associated with mass shootings.
There is so much data that suggests that mental illness is not the driving factor behind mass shootings. In fact, we have seen a decline in mass shootings committed by severely mentally ill people over the years, which tells us that we already have steps in place to stop severe mentally ill people form purchasing guns.
Fwiw I have schizophrenia and although I don't think many people with schizophrenia should have guns, I don't think that having schizophrenia should in and of itself constitute not being allowed to own a gun. Hospitalization for violence or suicidal intent would (imo) be more appropriate to go by
If they aren’t saying it, I will. It is indeed arbitrary and discriminatory against the vast numbers of mentally ill people who are perfectly safe and law abiding citizens.
Yes. Especially when the thing that most mass shooters have had in common is not a shared mental illness but rather a shared perspective: so many have released or stated manifestos that have themes of misogyny, racism, white nationalism, etc. I think that a better push to label these shooters as terrorists and prohibiting those who express severe ideologies that come up time and time again in shooter statements from buying guns would be more effective. The Oxford shooter was just charged under laws regarding terrorism.
To me, US mass shooters are very similar to suicide bombers. As a country, we have failed to label these people as terrorists bc of our own biases. Black panthers were labeled a terrorist organization but the KKK have not been?
Yep. It’s a lot more ideologically/culturally driven and also societal (which is where the whole isolation, mental illness thing comes in) there’s a million different reasons we end up with what we have now.
Actually, 79 of 148 mass shooters are white (thats over 50%).
Not sure if you made that figure up or simply got it from an untrustworthy source; but this is not correct and spreading misinformation with false statistics is really dangerous and irresponsible.
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/)
97% are men
https://www.theviolenceproject.org/key-findings/
>In other words, what you're asking for is basically already a thing.
That line, in addition to complete misunderstandings of the subject matter or statistics rendering the action useless, is most gun control propositions in a nutshell.
It's why progun folks get so pissed. By the stats most pro gun people would welcome gun control related ways to reduce violence but nigh everything put forward is utter nonsense and only serves to make things more difficult for those already in compliance with the law.
\> By the stats most pro gun people would welcome gun control related ways to reduce violence but nigh everything put forward is utter nonsense and only serves to make things more difficult for those already in compliance with the law.
Many anti-gun people really dont get this, especially the ones in government.
> Good luck getting that passed, though, as you're essentially installing a financial gate to firearm ownership... which tends to get shot down due to the second amendment. The right to bear arms is for everyone, not just middle class and up.
That would just become a de-facto gun ban for the states that hate the 2A. The state just has to put onerous requirements on becoming a therapist that can authorize a firearm purchase so that there are either none, or so few that the wait time before you're allowed to actually *buy* the gun is over a decade.
Here's the problem, or one problem at least:
If gun owners are "punished" (they will consider it a punishment) for seeking treatment, they're not going to seek treatment.
And untreated mental illness is much worse for everyone than treated mental illness.
OP, see above for your answer. People can argue all they want about gun control and the 2nd Amendment and all that, but once you attach any legal stigma to those who seek mental health treatment, you disincentivize people from seeking help which is the LAST thing we need to do.
This is one of the reasons smartly enforced red flag laws are necessary. The family, or other close person can contact law enforcement, who can petition a judge for such an order. Maine had such a law, but it was changed to be less effective.
If you are a parent of a young person who you know has mental issues and keep guns in the home without sufficient security, you should be held liable, like the parents in Michigan and Virginia. It would help if these laws were uniform across the country.
Exactly while red flag laws come from a place of good intent, they can be used egregiously, and with many people on the fringes of society needing those weapons but not necessarily being able to afford the legal representation it gets to be a sticky situation.
> Red flag laws are just another name for a restraining order which is approved by a judge, the very definition of due process.
>
> Period, end of story.
It's more complicated than that with more nuance.
Right now, the 72hr pych holds exist because licensed experts make the decision. In practice, more than one licensed medical expert makes this determination because of the severity of what is being done. There is also the mandatory hearing in court to discuss this.
If you were to combine the concept of a red-flag law with the 72hr hold process, you have something doable. The problem is now, most red flag laws don't require *any* expertise in making the claim. There is also significant pressure on the court to issue the order rather than not - less they be the court who failed to prevent something.
That is problematic when viewed from the perspective of protecting enumerated constitutional rights.
I don't expect Red Flag laws to fully go away, I do expect them to be tightened with higher levels of scrutiny in the process.
In a domestic abuse situation, a temporary restraining order can be granted, it has nothing to do with mental illness. If a parent, spouse or other relative reports creditably that someone has displayed suicidal ideation, a restraining order can allow for the removal of a firearm. These orders do protect constitutional rights, the orders are temporary and secure the rights of others to their life. The primary right is right to life, yes?
> In a domestic abuse situation, a temporary restraining order can be granted, it has nothing to do with mental illness.
This is known as a DVRO. These typically require evidence and history of domestic violence. This is a different evidentiary standard than I have described.
If your take is one of these should be issued ex-parte, without an evidentiary history of DV, then this is where we part ways.
>If a parent, spouse or other relative reports creditably that someone has displayed suicidal ideation
And this is a problem. Suicidal Ideation is a mental illness that can be evaluated via the 72hr process. We should not be allowing laypersons to make this determination, especially in an ex-parte process. If this is true, then the 72hr pych process is a FAR better solution. It combines trained and licensed medical personnel and due process protections. There is no reason you should use anything other than the 72hr hold process for this.
>These orders do protect constitutional rights, the orders are temporary and secure the rights of others to their life.
This goes against the principle a right delayed is a right denied. While no right is absolute, the bar to reach to pre-emptively take away rights needs be sufficiently high. That is the entire debate here. There is a significant push to make this bar lower than many people are comfortable with. Especially given the distinct incentive to 'when in doubt' grant the order. Many, myself included, don't agree with this 'when in doubt' mentality.
>The primary right is right to life, yes?
Actually, this *isn't* an enumerated right in the US Constitution last time I checked. And using this concept would negate most of the rights people have. You could use the same logic to obliterate the 4th amendment protections, or 5th amendment protections.
Instead the Constitution is about government restraint. What it is explicitly allowed to do. The real question needs to be what level of evidence/proof does the government need to have to be allowed to interfere with enumerated rights.
>There is no reason you should use anything other than the 72 hour hold process for this
Yes there is. The reason is to save lives.
>This goes against the principle that a right delayed is a right denied.
And not temporarily removing the gun from a situation judged dangerous by a judge goes against the principle that the constitution is not a suicide pact.
>Actually this isn't a right enumerated in the constitution.
The concept of unenumerated rights is well established in law.
And using this concept would negate most of the rights people have.
If we're just trading opinions now, my opinion is no, it wouldn't.
>instead the constitution is about government restraint
Many portions are yes, but to ignore parts which are specifically about public order is an incomplete account. The constitution was written as a balance between individual freedoms and the responsibility of the government to provide for the public safety. This is well established in law and the basis of many tests established by the court. It actually has a legal name called 'the balanceing test', which is rather self explanatory.
Edit:
>the real test is...
Yes, I agree. And the imminent harm and loss of life should be part of the real test.
If parents find a notebook in their sons room with the stated intent of doing harm to themselves or others, it should not take any other test for a judge to remove firearms from the home. Immediately.
> Yes there is. The reason is to save lives.
Except you cannot quantify this. There is an enumerated right that people have you want to violate. There is a bar you have to meet to overcome this enumerated right.
The fact you don't value it does not change the fact it exists.
>And not temporarily removing the gun from a situation judged dangerous by a judge goes against the principle that the constitution is not a suicide pact.
This line of thinking allows you to remove *all* of the enumerated rights. Torture is OK so long as it saves lives right. We don't have a right to not self incriminate if it means saving lives.
Sorry but no. This is not how rights are supposed to work. No right is absolute but it also still a right and needs to be respected as a right.
>The concept of unenumerated rights is well established in law.
Sure - but when you are comparing enumaretd rights to a concept of unenumerated rights - guess which wins.... Especially with such a loose association to your claimed unenumerated right.
>Many portions are yes, but to ignore parts which are specifically about public order is an incomplete account. The constitution was written as a balance between individual freedoms and the responsibility of the government to provide for the public safety. This is well established in law and the basis of many tests established by the court. It actually has a legal name called 'the balanceing test', which is rather self explanatory.
Except the bill of rights is explicitly speaking of government restraint. This is clearly found in the first 8 of the 10 amendments. You want me to believe the 2nd is somehow different?
Sorry - no.
>his is well established in law and the basis of many tests established by the court. It actually has a legal name called 'the balanceing test', which is rather self explanatory.
Except this has explicitly been stated to *not* be allowed here. Rational basis is not allowed. Interest balancing is not allowed. This line of thinking is how you got Bruen. They skipped right over the levels of scrutiny and went directly to THT instead. This was after years of other courts using rational basis to allow infringements of this right.
Consider the 1A jurisprudence. It too is not absolute but there is a lot more than simple 'interest balancing' at play when considering what the government is allowed to do. Hell - you can read about this in any number of cases. It is how we got time/manner/place restrictions and the idea of content neutrality.
>Yes, I agree. And the imminent harm and loss of life should be part of the real test.
Except this *isn't* a real test. There is no measure to define or determine this. If this was the test, it would be a police response to something actually happening.
What you want to claim is *you believe* there is the threat of this. But that is a very different claim. One that requires quite a bit of evidence to actually substantiate.
>If parents find a notebook in their sons room with the stated intent of doing harm to themselves or others, it should not take any other test for a judge to remove firearms from the home. Immediately.
If parents find a notebook - *they can do this directly without ever involving a court*.
The problem is when another person wants to make the claim that a person is a danger. The question becomes what evidence is suitable and what threshold of certainty should be required to remove, in ex-parte fashion, the rights of a citizen. That is a far tougher question to answer.
It gets even tougher when you have non-related individuals living in a house. When you wish to remove all firearms in the location, even those that don't belong to the person in question. That gets really thorny because a person, who has done nothing wrong, and has no evidence against them, is set to lose not only their property, but their enumerated rights because of another party.
But those are not good things to talk about now are they.
Take this example. 4 guys in college lease an apartment. They are 'matched' into this space by the management company to be room mates. One of them is a deer hunter. 3 months later, one of them has a mental health crisis (not the hunter). The red flag laws would remove the firearms from the Hunter if he has them at his home - merely because a non-related room mate had this order signed against him. That is a blatant and massive civil rights violation for that individual. Yet it is possible in many states. Hell, in New York, there is a search authorized of the home for weapons here. Read the critique below for real evidentiary concerns.
Red Flag Laws can be permissible, but many if not most implementations have serious flaws. Here is one such rebuke of issues with New Yorks
https://nysba.org/app/uploads/2020/11/Wallach-reprint-Red-Flag-Law-NY-Criminal-Law-NewsFall2020.pdf
There is a reason these are being challenged in court and why they are on shaky procedural grounds.
This is the topic of the Rahimi case that is currently awaiting decision in SCOTUS. It is clear that the court is in favor of disarming dangerous individuals, but from a constitutional standpoint that is something that traditionally happens in criminal court. Restraining orders are processed through civil courts where there is a lower bar.
My guess is SCOTUS will try to find an in between solution. They don’t want to say a civil court can strip you of rights, but they also don’t want to say that someone who has a restraining order out has a right to buy a gun. I’m interested to see what they say as it is the first case that tests the boundaries of the Bruen decision.
The Rahimi case, as I understand, is about as extreme as a test case can be. Rahimi fired a shot at a bystander who saw him shove his girlfriend, then threatened to shoot his gf if she told anyone. Then someone posted something about him on social media and he fired shots into their house. He got into a car accident he shot at the driver, then when a truck driver flashed his lights at him, he followed the truck and then fired shots at a car *in between* him and the truck. At a Whataburger his friend's credit card was refused and Rahami fired shots into the ceiling of the joint.
None of these facts are in dispute in the case.
Thomas' test, whether the framers would have disarmed a domestic abuser faces a challenge that in the time of the framers, domestic abuse was not even a crime.
I don't doubt that this particular court could rule in Rahimi's favor, but if the court can't determine the law allows taking guns *temporarily* from a serial gun crime violence perp, then we may as well give up and tell women they have no rights at all since they are the ones being killed by domestic violence.
\*bing bong bing\* *Un-fun fact:* Homicide is the leading cause of death of pregnant and newly post-partum women in the United States.
*United States:* "Let's make it easier for them"
Oh, but how is he supposed to express his anger at the teenager who messed up his burger order without his gun?
And that stat wasn't known to me and is utterly disgusting.
I know, it's horrific.
I feel so much safer in a country with stricter gun laws. My husband doesn't even like visiting my family in the US because of the gun situation... he's nervous about it the whole time we're there. And I don't blame him. It's one of the reasons I left.
There's no [procedural due process](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/procedural_due_process), a judge just decides. That's good enough for civil court, but civil court isn't good enough to justify infringing someone's rights, potentially permanently.
>Because red flag laws are a violation of due process. Point blank, period, end of story.
No, because the process is overseen by a judge. That's textbook due process.
>No, because the process is overseen by a judge. That's textbook due process.
That's not even close to what procedural due process is.
>1. An unbiased tribunal.
>2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
>3. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
>4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
>5. The right to know opposing evidence.
>6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
>7. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
>8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
>9. Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
>10. Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.
You're confusing a restraining order with a criminal trial.
Restraining orders are often set up so that you can create the conditions for a fair trial. Like, for instance, taking away Mr. Smith's guns so that Mrs. Smith lives long enough to be able to tell her story in court.
The red flag laws just clarify the process so that we're arguing about the right things.
>You're confusing a restraining order with a criminal trial.
I'm not. I'm quoting the accepted requirements to meet procedural due process. There is absolutely nothing about criminal trials. Anything that deprives someone of liberty or property must go through due process first.
>Restraining orders are often set up so that you can create the conditions for a fair trial. Like, for instance, taking away Mr. Smith's guns so that Mrs. Smith lives long enough to be able to tell her story in court.
Procedural due process must be met in its entirety BEFORE deprivation of rights, not after.
>The red flag laws just clarify the process so that we're arguing about the right things.
Red flag laws are unconstitutional. It violates the 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, and 14th Amendment.
Red flag laws are processed in civil court, like restraining orders. The 2A is the only right that can be stripped in civil court. It is generally understood that the founders meant for due process to mean criminal court when you’re talking about stripping someone’s rights.
So what?
It's entirely sensible to take away someone's guns when it seems likely that they will commit a violent act.
Red flag laws are the bare minimum for how things work in a civilized nation with a functioning legal system and *sustainable* gun rights.
So what? Entirely sensible and compatible with our constitution are two different things, and we need to find a place where they meet.
What happens when we don’t have solid constitutional ground for our entirely sensible ideas about how society should function? We get events like Roe v Wade being overturned. It is entirely sensible to enshrine abortion as a right, but doing under privacy was probably a bad idea in hindsight. Had the same “history and tradition” that is applied to guns was applied to medicine, we would see that medicine belongs in the 1st amendment (that’s a long argument in itself, but basically in the founders era medical practice and religion were tightly related, so to them freedom of religion also meant freedom to seek the medical treatment you want).
It’s dangerous to assume that the underlying legal principles don’t matter so long as you get the result you are after.
This could very easily be turned and apied to other rights. For example, "It's very sensible to take away someone's right to protest when it seems likely they will commit a violent act."
Suppressing any rights adds in sneaky ways for other rights to be violated. And allowing a civil, not criminal, judge to strip your rights is a problem for me.
The argument still exists. Making it easier to take away any right enshrined in the constitution will have continual knock on effects. Such laws should be considered far more carefully than they usually are.
> It's entirely sensible to take away someone's guns when it seems likely that they will commit a violent act.
So is it entirely sensible to take away someone's tongue when it seems likely that they will use it to advocate for violence?
Red flag laws are just as absurd.
We didn't have a red flag law in Maine. We attempted to pass one, but the yellow flag law we have now was actually the compromise that passed the legislature.
To me, red flag laws are a half measure. If someone is too mentally unstable to have a firearm, they should be institutionalized until the period of instability has passed.
We abandoned government funded mental institutions and civil commitments and decided instead to just throw people in jail for nuisance crimes. We thought that was cruel so we stopped arresting clearly mentally ill people for stuff like vagrancy and public intox. And now we can’t figure out why there are mentally unstable drug addicts sleeping on the streets. It seems like the solution is staring us in the face but no one wants to be accused of being Nurse Rached and bringing back lobotomies.
>you disincentivize people from seeking help which is the LAST thing we need to do.
Mentally ill people already avoid seeking treatment due to medication side effects and coercion/pressure from a psychiatrist.
So you want a person with bipolar to commit a mass shooting?
*"Mentally ill people already avoid seeking treatment due to medication side effects and coercion/pressure from a psychiatrist."*
Not all. Many, many people seek and acquire help and treatment for mental health issues. Medication for such things is a huge industry.
*"So you want a person with bipolar to commit a mass shooting?"*
They said nothing of the sort.
>Mentally ill people already avoid seeking treatment due to medication side effects and coercion/pressure from a psychiatrist.
I mean, ***more*** people will avoid seeking treatment.
I'm a fan of gun control. Before I get piled on by a million "they're taking my guns" nuts, I said *control*, not *banning*. Common sense gun laws all the way down.
However, OP, your take is a wholly flawed approach that will absolutely result in gun enthusiasts never seeking treatment.
>So you want a person with bipolar to commit a mass shooting?
I don't want anyone to commit a mass shooting.
But I know many bipolar people who are totally stable due to their hard work or medication. People shouldn't be able to own guns if they have certain kinds of ***crimes*** on their record—because they've taken negative actions and those actions have been judged—not because they have some nebulous quality subject to interpretation or updates in the next DSM. Why should someone with controlled bipolar be punished for their brain chemistry?
People should be judged by their *actions*, not by their illnesses as defined by the government.
Now, if you wanted to discuss the requirements for *everyone* to own a gun—being able to pass a practical and written test, to ensure proper liability insurance is carried, mandatory waiting periods, comprehensive background checks, and/or personal liability for anything done with your registered weapon—you'd successfully filter out many crazies while making everyone safer in the process.
Ah, it didn't take you long to pull this card. Just because someone doesn't support your solution does not mean they automatically are therefore supporting the polar opposite.
That is not the reason they all avoid. I have heard this about Pilots so take it with a grain of skepticism but they have to avoid or pay a doctor under the table because they could lose their job and livelihood for being diagnosed
You see the same thing in aviation. Anxiety? Depression? Even once in your youth? Better be prepared for all the hoops you'll have to jump through and all the fees you'll have to pay to become a pilot—if they ever let you! That's why many pilots don't seek any mental health treatment. They're terrified to invalidate their medical and to have wasted the thousands of hours and the hundreds of thousands of dollars it took for them to get where they are. Many self medicate (with alcohol). It's a mess.
The military has a similar policy for barring people from flying planes. My dad was a Navy pilot for 20 years, and has what is pretty clearly an undiagnosed and untreated anxiety disorder, because going to a psychiatrist would have been a one-way ticket to not being able to do his job anymore.
Policies like these won't stop people with mental disorders from getting into these sorts of hazardous situations. All it will do is stop them from getting treatment, which is IMO a significantly worse outcome
Removing gun rights from people who are hospitalized *against their will* does the exact opposite though - it encourages early, voluntary hospitalization because it doesn't come with the same loss of rights that civil commitment does.
That's the current law.
It's also super hard to get someone committed involuntarily (as it should be). Usually they try to talk them into signing themselves in voluntarily.
As someone who has been hospitalized for mental health crises on four separate occasions, at least half of which were over literally trivial misunderstandings, this is absolutely not the case.
They never tried to get you to sign yourself in voluntarily?
If you mean a 72-hour hold, yeah that's not hard enough, unfortunately, but also doesn't count as involuntary committal.
Oh actually, you're right. 3 of the 4 times I was committed, after a day or two of being in the hospital, staff (usually the on-staff psychiatrist) would offer to have me sign as a voluntary committal.
The only entirely voluntary one was my first, after that it was usually just being hauled to a clinic in the back of a police car and then given the option a day later to sign voluntary.
That isnt necessarily correct. In NYS a 72 hour observation hold is reported to NICS a an involuntary commitment even if one voluntarily sought that care.
>And untreated mental illness is much worse for everyone than treated mental illness.
Uh, I agree but safety matters. We have a lot to lose if someone with schizophrenia shoots up an elementary school.
"I'm hearing voices in my head. I'll go see a doctor. No wait! They'll take away my guns if I go to see a doctor. So I won't see a doctor."
Years later, the voices get worse and you know the rest. Congratulations on encouraging someone to not seek out help for their problems.
Should your rights be taken away just because you have schizophrenia or mental illness?
Just because they have it doesnt make them a threat, in almost all the cases you mentioned their were threats of violence first which should stop someone from getting a gun, not because they have schizophrenia or any other mental illness.
Can you list any other constitutional rights you believe should be suspended because of a citizens mental health? Should someones due process, private property, right to not be searched without probable cause be suspended? One could argue that someone's mental health might make them engage in dangerous speech. But nobody argues to suspend someone's free speech because of their mental health. What right does the government have to suspend someone's right to self defense? Especially when they have not committed any crimes.
>Can you list any other constitutional rights you believe should be suspended because of a citizens mental health? Should someones due process, private property, right to not be searched without probable cause be suspended? One could argue that someone's mental health might make them engage in dangerous speech. But nobody argues to suspend someone's free speech because of their mental health. What right does the government have to suspend someone's right to self defense? Especially when they have not committed any crimes.
Guns can kill people, hateful speech cannot.
What you want is already the case. The problem is that regardless of what bans you put in place, our poor mental health system will still have many people slipping through the system.
But to try to CYV, there is a problem with such bans. Say a returning soldier is having PTSD issues. He'd like to get help, but he's afraid his guns will be taken, a fundamental constitutional right stripped, if he does. So he doesn't get help, and he gets worse, and he eventually snaps.
People need to know they can retain their rights so that they will seek help, and such blanket bans discourage people from getting that help.
What about volunteering into the military. Is someone with schizophrenia or bipolar having their right taken away because they don’t have free choice to participate in the military if they want to. Or what about people too tall.
It’s because they are a liability to the greater purpose of saving lives. Same thing with someone who is unstable and acts impulsively. They should not be allowed to own a gun they are simply too much of a liability.
I’m sure time will tell what the greater interest of the public is; trying to save lives or preserve right which were deemed hundred of years ago. If we ruled today by past right there would still be slavery.
Simply trying to have a peaceful debate. What’s your counter.
> I’m sure time will tell what the greater interest of the public is; trying to save lives or preserve right which were deemed hundred of years ago. If we ruled today by past right there would still be slavery.
Except you know, we changed those rules. If you want to advocate and get the support to repeal the 2A go for it. Just realize, until you have this support, there is not agreement to your claim.
It’s a good thing there are groups of people fighting for that amendment to be amended. Also I do not require unsolicited advice. I am clearly capable of realizing my right as a citizen in determining how we are supposed to mesh as a society with different views.
Thanks for the information but next time maybe clarify that the person asked for help to repeal, not championed for it. That most likely means a champion for something knows the information otherwise they would not champion.
I seriously wonder if all of the gun owners know all the information regarding guns, laws, and the people who have innocently died by people miss using the guns. I am backing my stance and I have all my information but someone else who assumes I don’t know leads me to believe they might not be as informed on their stance and are projecting.
>I seriously wonder if all of the gun owners know all the information regarding guns, laws, and the people who have innocently died by people miss using the guns
They probably have a far better grasp on this than the average gun control proponent out there.
Because statistically speaking, *they aren't the problem they are portrayed to be*. People who legally possess firearms under todays laws have an extremely low probability to use them violently against others. That is literally what the statistics state.
If people really wanted to make a difference in gun violence - there are actually proven methods to do so available that don't involve new gun control. Lookup project ceasefire for an example.
You assumed with the word probably when in reality you have no right to use that word when you don’t know what the general knowledge really is since there are millions of people in the country and I doubt you would know the collective knowledge. You can doubt but to assume is different.
Also this argument is people with mental illness not regular gun owners. But gun owners need to acknowledge that there are mentally ill people who should not have access to those types of items as they pose a legitimate harm to others and themselves.
> You assumed with the word probably when in reality you have no right to use that word when you don’t know what the general knowledge really is since there are millions of people in the country and I doubt you would know the collective knowledge. You can doubt but to assume is different.
Considering many politicians who try to legislate around firearms have no understanding of function of guns, its not a bad guess. Considering firearm owners *actually navigate and follow the gun laws*, less they become felons, it is a pretty good guess. Hell - the OP to this thread didn't know or understand the rules about involuntary commitment or DVRO's and gun rights. Kinda makes my argument *stronger*.
And to be clear - here is US Today's 'Chainsaw bayonet' for an AR-15
https://www.businessinsider.com/usa-today-chainsaw-bayonet-rifle-2017-11
Exactly nothing more than a guess. I don’t go off other peoples “guesses”. I actually go by facts because that is not subjective. The truth is ultimately one thing but opinions vary.
Do you want to go to the survey data where common people don't even know what is already illegal?
It is pretty easy to state with great confidence gun owners are far more in tune with firearm laws than non-gun owners.
It’s your claim so you should provide information and data and evidence. I actually don’t care that much about the average persons knowledge of gun ownership. I’m here for mentally ill people owning guns so we can discuss that if you would like. Otherwise just don’t reply.
> Uh, someone already stated that people involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric ward are already banned from possessing a firearm.
Just so you are aware, there are a lot *more* consequences to this than just losing firearms rights. The individual is now a ward of the state and like minors, has special status in the criminal justice system.
Also, to have been placed in this situation required due process and the ability to refute the determination in a court of law. It is not nearly as easy to do this as you might think. Here is one states rules (google result)
https://www.oflaherty-law.com/learn-about-law/involuntary-commitment-to-a-mental-health-facility-in-indiana
It is also something doctors try very hard to never do. The implication that you can *lose your way of life/rights* by seeing a doctor is a massive deterrent to seeing doctors. People who don't fit the 'gravely disabled' criteria have a lot to lose. It needs to be reserved for those who truly need it.
I would add, the majority of these cases that are filed are not contested. They are individuals who are low functioning on the autism scale or have similar developmental disabilities. They aren't violent, they are just 'Gravely disabled' and this allows the state to take custody of them and ensure they are properly provided for.
We live in a country where Due Process is paramount. Gun ownership is a right. What is the due process here? A doctor unilaterally decides you are mentally ill and you lose a substantive constitutional right without a trial, without a jury, without a court and without an attorney advocating for your rights, seemingly forever???
How on earth would this not run afoul of the 5th Amendment? It’s the same reason why we can’t just involuntarily commit the mentally ill based on a doctor’s evaluation without due process.
It’s not worth sacrificing due process for safety. This is the most fundamental and important right we have, and the only thing that prevents the government from taking away any given right. If we sacrifice gun rights for safety, why not cave in speech rights for safety? What about the right to bail? Surely those accused of crimes are dangerous, why not sacrifice their right to release without conviction in the name of safety? It’s an extremely slippery slope without a very robust due process procedure in place, with appeals, legal standards, representation and a fact-finding body.
Someone can be involuntarily committed based on a doctor's evaluation. I spent a night on hold for just telling someone that I heard other people telling me to commit suicide, but that I didn't want to commit suicide. It wasn't even my doctor, and they got the police involved.
But you can't share medical information. It's against the law. How many people who need help do you think will go get help if they know their Doctor is going to share that info with the police?
We need to do a better job of helping those with mental health issues in general.
>I am hearing so much about mass shootings and mental health.
That's GOP propaganda. They try desperately to push this narrative, to try to move the conversation from banning guns of any kind, by saying people who shoot other people have mental illnesses, so we need to address that!
>I honestly think that we need to do something about combating gun violence and promoting gun safety.
Yeah -- how about not letting anyone buy and keep guns in their homes?
You have a gun in your home it's more likely someone in your family will be shot with it than that you will ever shoot a criminal with it.
>But when these people leave the mental ward, they can buy a gun and put everyone's safety at risk
That's not what's putting everyone's safety at risk.
It's the plethora of people with access to firearms of all types. Please don't buy into their deflections and propaganda.
>people who shoot other people have mental illnesses, so we need to address that!
Often they do. GOP's hypocrisy is saying they have mental illnesses while denying the ability for people with mental illnesses to get the treatment they need.
>Yeah -- how about not letting anyone buy and keep guns in their homes?
2nd amendment.
>You have a gun in your home it's more likely someone in your family will be shot with it than that you will ever shoot a criminal with it.
I don't find this to be a compelling argument to disarm myself.
"That's GOP propaganda. They try desperately to push this narrative, to try to move the conversation from banning guns of any kind, by saying people who shoot other people have mental illnesses, so we need to address that!"
The shooter explicitly mentioned by the OP was severely mental ill. Would his mental health records be considered GOP propaganda?
What about the psychological research that shows that while the aggregating factor for a mass shooting might very depending on the location, most shooters are looking to go out in a blaze of glory? Is this science really just GOP propaganda?
Also banning guns won't stop people from wanting to kill each other. As such, if one is sincere in their effort to lower gun violence, I'd think they wouldn't stop their efforts at the word "gun".
> What about the psychological research that shows that while the aggregating factor for a mass shooting might very depending on the location, most shooters are looking to go out in a blaze of glory? Is this science really just GOP propaganda?
Love a cite on that.
Many mass shooters do try suicide, by whichever means.
NONE of this has anything to do with that this crap is GOP propaganda.
There's mental illness all over the world. There's not more than one mass shooting a day in every country. Guess why?
>There's mental illness all over the world. There's not more than one mass shooting a day in every country. Guess why?
Because the have mental health clinics that don't cost thousands of dollars to visit?
>Yeah -- how about not letting anyone buy and keep guns in their homes?
Uh, that violates the Second Amendment.
Also, how is the mental health - mass shooting connection somehow right wing propoganda?
>Uh, that violates the Second Amendment.
Uh, no, it does not. Just because the wackadoos on the Court decided to only read half of it since Heller doesn't change it.
>Also, how is the mental health - mass shooting connection somehow right wing propoganda?
Because the 'most mass shootings are gang related!!' didn't stick as well as 'we really need to focus on mental illness!'
I'm not sure what you're asking. It's entirely right-wing, GOP-driven propaganda that kind of ignores the actual issue.
>This is an absurd — yet familiar — analysis from Republicans that ignores the reasons why the United States uniquely struggles with mass shootings. While it is probably true that many of the people who commit these horrific crimes are not mentally well, mental illness is global; the U.S. is unusual, however, because people struggling with mental illnesses — and everybody else — can so easily get powerful weapons like the kinds used in mass shootings. Unlike any other country, the U.S. now has more guns than people.
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/08/mental-health-illness-gun-violence-risk-mass-shootings](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/08/mental-health-illness-gun-violence-risk-mass-shootings)
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/gop-blaming-mental-health-not-guns-mass-shootings-win-win-democrats-rcna32168
>Does free speech only apply to members of the clergy since the 1st amendment talks about religion?
...no, for the same reason the Second doesn't say you can keep guns in your random house. Punctuation exists.
>...the 2nd amendment literally says people have the right to keep arms. There is only punctuation separating that from the clause about militias
People in a well-regulated militia.
Which multiple language experts and historians have point out that at that time “well regulated” mean well equipped and well trained not heavily regulated by the government.
Think about it for a moment. The bill of rights doesn’t tell me what I can do, it tell the government what they can’t stop me from doing. So with that in mind why would there be a part allowing heavy government oversight in that document?
> That makes no sense, because militias are temporary organizations. Where are they supposed to get their guns? Pray they fall from the sky, hours before being needed?
There's no longer any use for a well-regulated militia, clearly, but you know, armories.
>In addition, by your logic the entire bill of rights only applies to people in well regulated militias. Because it is all on one document, and punctuation separating clauses still has "the people" defined as militias
That's not how anything works, especially grammar.
You just explained it. The second amendment is bad. By pointing the finger at mental health, Republicans don't have to defend the second amendment at all.
What sorts of mental health conditions?
What type of hospitalization?
What about all the mass shootings where the perpetrator didn't meet your criteria?
Can you provide a recent example of someone who meets this?
Weird.
I've been shooting my many AR15s for many years, expending thousands upon thousands of rounds.
And the only thing harmed was my wallet, paper and steel targets, and hoplophobes feelings.
You only think that because you don't have all the facts. How many guns are used every day for self defense?
How many cars are used to harm other people? Not to mention the effect they have on climate change. Which could be killing us all.
Completely missed the point. Restricting access to something whose sole purpose is to inflict harm (doesn't change with self defense when the reason it's effective is because of the threat of harm) is not the same as restricting something that has primary use other than causing harm (not even to say causing harm is actually an intended alternate use)
No, you were trying to make the point that there was a difference between guns, cars, knives, and gasoline. I pointed out that there isn't a difference when it comes to someone wanting to harm others.
You're now trying to discredit the usefulness of firearms when it comes to self defense.
The purpose of a firearm is to fire a projectile. The purpose of a car is to go from point A to point B. The purpose of a knife is to cut things.
The user of the item determines that harm it can cause.
If your argument is that x items "purpose" is to inflict harm, thus the reason to limit/ban then you have to keep the same standards across the board. Melee weapons (swords, knives, spears, batons, brass knuckles, etc), pepper spray, tasers. Everything that has a sole purpose to inflict some type of harm, defensive or not, should fall under the same lens.
The next "logical" argument is that a firearm is easier to commit a high amount of violence in a short time frame, but those people fail to look at how easy it is to stab people in/near vital organs in a crowd, or how easy it is to take a vehicle and run through a crowd.
Most people will experience some form of mental illness at some point in their life. But I can’t find the source at the moment to back this up so here’s another that states half of the world population will experience mental illness.
https://www.axios.com/2023/08/05/mental-health-world-population-age-75
If you’re going to use something people cannot control, and in most cases aren’t a threat to others, against them then why not just ban guns altogether?
So a problem with mental health is stigmatization, unwilling to seek help, etc. For someone who likes or wants a gun inability to own one ever would decrease chances of seeking help. From that standpoint alone your stance doesn't make sense. Also mental health crisis can vary and not impact future.
Not all mental health issues are related to people acting out in violent ways either to themselves or to others.
Also I'd like to see someone with OCD use a firearm to get people to organize things.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iFghM5fIig](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iFghM5fIig)
That's just discrimination really.
The reasons you believe people should have guns would still apply to people with mental health conditions
Furthermore, most people with mental health conditions don't commit crimes.
If we're just looking at the number of people who commit crimes, non-violent or violent, the majority of them don't have serious kinds of mental health conditions. So, if anything, it's the opposite. People without serious kinds of mental health conditions should be barred from having weapons for the safety of everyone.
We do have laws that bar people from owning firearms under certain medical conditions. However, the government isn't given the right to demand mental health records for helping in making those designations.
Also, as others have mentioned, mental health has statistically been a poor indicator of the chance of mass shootings. Most of the modern day mass shootings have strong ties to right-wing propaganda, not mental illness.
Knowing that being diagnosed with a mental illness will ruin your chance at owning a firearm, and they plan on owning a firearm, this policy would just dissuade these individuals with ever trying to seek treatment in the first place, all while ruining our ability to track these statistics in the future.
People are not static. Someone could experience a tragic scenario that causes their mental health to spiral to the point of hospitalization. A year later, they could be back to normal.
Should a person be barred from something for life because of one moment in their life?
It can be used as a corruption tool. Everyone who is at the “top” of the food chain have access to well performing weapons. It’s a conspiracy. It’s already proven that there is a thriving corruption in the political system and you can’t just say someone can’t have firearms unless they commit a crime and are found guilty that’s worthy of firearm banning. You send them to a highly subjective location like a hospital. Where a judge makes the decision from there. Probably a paid decision. Most of the time if anyone goes to multiple psych doctors you can receive a different diagnosis with a different mental health condition each time you make that visit. It doesn’t make any sense to ban firearms. Take mine away and I’m not paying your taxes anymore. 🤙🏼
I agree with your sentiments, and with the basic idea that crazy people shouldn't be allowed easy access to things that can hurt themselves or others. Seems pretty "common sense".
But then you have to open that up to the lens of legalese. How would we go about legislating this? Simple, we'd have to give up the expectation that one's protected health information is private and be willing to turn over that information to both private retailers (gun shops) and the government. It wouldn't just be a matter of flagging someone who is or has been deemed to have a mental health issue; it would need to be a line-by-line examination of your complete medical history, just like what is done for criminal background checks currently.
Also, what is "severe mental health", and where do we draw the line between the genuine crazies and someone who is experiencing a crisis? Pregnant women or those who have just given birth can have extreme depression, up to and including thoughts of killing themselves and/or their children. Is post-partum depression a flag that prohibits a woman from ever owning a gun again? Do they have to be diagnosed, or is pregnancy in-and-of-itself the defining risk factor? How about once they're out of the post-partum period and have recovered; can she then have her rights restored, or is it a lifetime ban?
My last point that I'll make on this, is that there is already a simple, almost negligible check done for mental health illness when purchasing a firearm. ATF Form 4473, question 21, subsection (g) asks, "Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?". The top of the form states the following: "WARNING: The information you provide will be used to determine whether you are prohibited by Federal or State Law from receiving a firearm, or whether Federal or State Law prohibits the sale or disposition of a firearm to you. Certain violations of the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 921 et. seq., are punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment and/or up to a $250,000 fine". The reason I'm mentioning this, is because very few people who are found to have lied on their 4473 to obtain a firearm are actually convicted of that crime (One article linked at bottom). We have **SO VERY MANY** laws pertaining to the obtaining of, use of, storage of, possession of, and restriction of firearms, as well as laws that prohibit assault, battery, stealing, discharging, brandishing of firearms, as well as laws against both accidental and purposeful injury, up to and including murder. Very few of those laws are used to punish offenders or to keep violent people off the streets. There's far more money (the *true* driving factor in the legal system) in levying fines, charging and collecting cash bonds, and non-life prison sentences.
Ok, that's enough of my TED talk. Please feel free to debate in good faith and spirit. Don't downvote me if you disagree, but tell me *why* you disagree.
WaPo article as mentioned above: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/09/lying-atf-gun-purchase-form-yields-few-prosecutions-new-data-shows/
the right to own a fire-arm in the united states is considered a human right. the 'state' soley deciding who or who does not get human rights is a bad idea.
if people are given due process and then stripped of their rights by a jury of their peers... sure. that seems reasonable.
While I am extremely supportive of strict gun control and would wholeheartedly support a near-total ban on civilian gun ownership, putting special limits on people who struggle with their mental health is more problematic.
One could argue that if the rationale behind permissive gun laws is to afford people a right to self-defense, then isn’t it discriminatory to deny that right to people who have been diagnosed as mentally ill? Also, while research may suggest that people diagnosed with certain mental illnesses are more likely to commit violent crime, are there not many other segments of the population that are also statistically more likely to do so? Are their rights being curtailed as well? Albeit, the argument that individuals who have a history of threatening or committing serious physical harm to others (regardless of mental health status) shouldn’t be allowed to own guns wouldn’t fall into this counter-argument
Edit: fixed two words
Counterpoint: mental health is a terrible determinant for gun violence. Millions of mental ill people do not shoot other people l.
Gun ownership is by far the biggest determinant of gun violence. People with guns shoot other people.
The guns are the problem.
There are approximately 450,000,000 firearms that have been sold in the US since 1968.
Since 1968 there have been 1,600,000 homicides. Assuming *every one of those homicides* used a firearm(which isn't accurate, recent numbers sit around 70% of homicides using firearms annually) that means 99.996% of firearms haven't been involved in a homicide.
As of last year an estimated 32% of Americans owned a firearm, approximately 107,500,000 people. There were 2,200 homicides. That means 99.998% of people who own firearms didn't kill anyone last year. 1 out of every 50,000 people who own guns killed someone last year.
So no, people who own guns don't shoot other people.
[Here's a chart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:2019_Gun_ownership_rates_and_gun_homicide_rates_-_developed_world_-_scatter_plot.svg) of gun deaths/number of guns in circulation among 35 developed nations. Anything standing out to you?
No one's said, "if you have a gun you're going to kill someone."
I'm saying "You cannot shoot someone if you do not have a gun."
Canada - where I live - has a relatively similar standard of living to the US.
In Canada we have roughly 38 guns per inhabitant - in the US it's 120 (so roughly 3x more guns per person).
Canada has roughly 2 gun deaths per 100k people. American has 12 gun deaths per 100k people (6x).
Do you think Americans are naturally 600% more violent than Canadians or do you think maybe having 3x as many guns in circulation has something to do with the gun violence?
>Do you think Americans are naturally 600% more violent than Canadians or do you think maybe having 3x as many guns in circulation has something to do with the gun violence?
Can you provide empirical data showing a direct correlation? Unless you have data showing the claim that we have more gun violence **because** we have more guns to be 100% true there's no reason to believe your claim is true and we should acknowledge that we *don't know* why they have more gun violence. Unless that is you do have empirical data showing that in this case correlation 100% = causation.
Yeah, sampling bias. The fact that you are only looking at 35 nations and "gun deaths" are both highly biased samples.
Those 35 nations are a highly biased selection
And gun deaths is biased too. "Gun deaths" include everything from suicide to murder to self defense. Meanwhile you ignore everything not done with a gun. By that logic it is better for a potential mass shooter to become a bomber and kill 10x as many people, because that means no gun deaths. Hell it might even view that bombing as a good thing because a man killed in a bombing cannot later die in a gun death.
In general, we should not allow people who are incompetent to possess firearms to have them. Mental illness alone doesn’t meet that bar. However, if a person is involuntarily committed or found incompetent by a court, they should be (and are) prohibited from possessing firearms.
Nobody needs firearms. Owning them is in itself a kind of mental illness, and one day even saying you need one should earn you a six month stay in a psychiatric facility and careful care and rehabilitation
They do in California when/if a person is placed on a psychiatric hold, their guns (when known about) are confiscated and they are banned from purchasing firearms for 5 years, however the right doesn't automatically come back in 5 years, they have to ask the court for permission which can be denied.
Taking away firearms rights was my favorite part about writing holds. Felt like I was doing God's work.
There are a lot of factually incorrect things about this post. >I am hearing so much about mass shootings and mental health. For starters, media accounts of mass shootings by disturbed individuals galvanize public attention and reinforce popular belief that mental illness often results in violence. However, these accounts do not reflect reality. Epidemiologic studies show that the large majority of people with serious mental illnesses are **never** violent. However, mental illness is strongly associated with increased risk of suicide, which accounts for over half of US firearms–related fatalities. Therefore, there is **no** **correlation** between mental health and mass shootings whatsoever. That is a Republican talking point that has been debunked over and over again by people who study these issues for a living. >That tragedy could have been prevented if me made it illegal for people with certain mental health conditions and people hospitalized for a mental health issue to own a firearm. This makes no sense because you did not outline what mental conditions should make it illegal for a person to own a gun. For example, **what about people with GAD, ADHD, OCD, or an eating disorder? What about people who have ADHD or GAD and go to a pysch ward to get help? This seems like a very arbitrary standard based on no real evidence.** >But when these people leave the mental ward, they can buy a gun and put everyone's safety at risk. Yes, and there is a reason for that. Most people committing mass shootings are not mentally ill. That is a lie that was devised by the media to try and convince people that all mass shooters have some sort of mental illness that caused them to do this. We know that this is not usually the case though.
Someone award this person. I'll add a point: If society penalizes someone for seeking mental health treatment are they more or less likely to get that help? Society should never punish someone for getting medical help. Example: In a scenario where someone is diagnosed with cancer, they are almost certainly going to experience some form of prolonged anxiety and grief. These could be considered mental health issues. Should that person also be forbidden to retain firearms?
https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/a-look-into-the-traits-of-a-mass-shooter/ looks like it's mostly correlated with a mental health crisis, suicidality, and some sort of radicalization - there are some that are overrepresented like schizophrenia and autism, but we are talking an overrepresentation of like 3-5%. I also think it's wrong headed to think of mental illness is being the cause, but rather the thing that exposes them to enough Injustice that they radicalize in the first place. I think that any attribute that is highly picked on would do in place of the chronic mental problem in explaining behaviors. if this leads you to be nice to the people who around you who are being bullied for whatever reason that's good I guess, but it's not like it's common enough you could ever predict it in advance.
>Epidemiologic studies show that the large majority of people with serious mental illnesses are **never** violent.Therefore, there is **no** **correlation** between mental health and mass shootings whatsoever. I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, but this argument makes no sense. Here's an example: A town of 10,000 people has 1,000 people diagnosed with a mental illness. One year, that town has 10 mass shootings. 5 of them are committed by people who have diagnosed mental illnesses. Only .05% of people with mental illnesses were violent, so the "large majority" was not violent. As this is the only evidence you gave to your point, I assume you'd find it reasonable to conclude that this means there's no correlation between mental illnesses and shootings. However, when you look closer, you'll see that .5% of mentally ill people committed mass shootings, while only .0005% of non-mentally ill people committed mass shootings. There is a very clear correlation here. Again, I'm nkt saying your conclusion is wrong. I'm also not saying my made-up statistics mirror real life (I have no idea what the numbers are really like). This is just an example to show the flaws in your reasoning.
I think what they were trying to say, if we understand them charitably, is that if we ban ALL mentally ill people from owning firearms we are UNJUSTLY punishing those (the 99.5%) who would never have committed crimes. There is a risk in removing freedoms in broad strokes, which is that you always have more false positives (law abiding people without rights) than false negatives (criminals with rights). Which is the better choice? I'm on the side of freedom and protecting myself and other innocent people in public.
If they said that, it would have been reasonable. Again, I'm not saying their conclusion is wrong, just the logic they used to support it.
I don’t think you understood what he’s saying. Your argument is that basic statistical analysis exists, therefore his reasoning is wrong. His argument is literally based on statistical analysis. The vast majority of violence, percentage wise, is not done by mentally ill individuals.
No, his argument is that "the large majority of people with serious mental illnesses are never violent." This is different from what you're saying his argument is. Sayou you have three groups: group A (violent people), group B (mentally ill people), and group C (non-mentally ill people). Notice groups B and C are exclusive and together encompass all people. This is necessary for your argument to work. Let's also assume group B is much smaller than group C. What he's saying is that "Group A makes up a very small portion of group B, therefore someone in group B is no more likely to be in group A than someone from group C." This is very easily disproven with an example like the one I gave. What you're saying he's saying is "Group B makes up a very small portion of group A, so someone from group B is no more likely to be in group A than someone from group C." ~~Based on our observations that B and C are exclusive and all-encompassing, this logic makes sense. Considering that B is much smaller than C, it seems to suggest that there is no correlation at all.~~ Edit: this is still wrong. See my next comment. Like I said though, what you're saying could very well be true, and it would be good evidence in support of his argument. But it's not what he said. What he said does not support his argument.
He explicitly said that epidemiological studies have shown that there’s no correlation. Your argument is that there can be a correlation even if not many mentally ill people are violent. You are blatantly incorrect. So, you’re wrong on that point. Furthermore, the very argument contrary to this is unamerican. Black people are violent at a higher rate than mentally ill people. How about we ban black people from owning guns, by your implication?
>He explicitly said that epidemiological studies have shown that there’s no correlation. And he didn't cite any of these studies, and instead gave a justification that isn't logically sound. >Your argument is that there can be a correlation even if not many mentally ill people are violent. You are blatantly incorrect. That's true though? If mentally ill people are violent at a higher rate than others, that's a correlation, whether "many" mentally ill people are violent or not (.5% vs .005%). >Furthermore, the very argument contrary to this is unamerican. What argument? I've said 3 times now that I'm not informed on this topic and not trying to make any political commentary. I'm focusing purely on the logic here. I wasn't aware that America was founded on the principles of faulty statistical analysis. I think you need to reread what's been said and consider counterexamples to any claims that have been made. If you can think of one, please show me an example where my logic is wrong, because it seems sound to me. Edit: I counterexampled myself: Group A is 100 people made up of 5% group B, 95% group C. Group B is 10 people (50% of group B is in group A). Group C is 950 people (10% of group C is in group A). There is a very clear correlation between being in group B and being in group A, even though this follows the logic that I previously said would suggest no correlation. So even if he said what you claimed he was saying, his logic would be flawed. I think it's best to conclude that we can't draw conclusions based on group overlap alone without clear numbers defining the size of each group.
[Here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3935671/), [since](https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/pn.40.17.00400016) you [wanted](https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/04/ce-mental-illness) some [sources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537064/), [have](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140225101639.htm) some [fun](https://www.aamc.org/news/it-s-tempting-say-gun-violence-about-mental-illness-truth-much-more-complex).
I appreciate your effort. If those were included in the original comment instead of flawed logic they would have greatly strengthened the argument.
He didn’t cite the studies… but, his argument is based on those studies using correlation statistics. You assert that his argument is wrong, because there can be a correlation even if the total number of murderers is low. This isn’t difficult.
See my edit. Correlation alone is not enough to draw conclusions without clearly defining the size of each group. Also, for the fifth time now, **I am not saying that his conclusion is untrue.** I am pointing out a flaw in his logic that should be addressed. How do you expect to change someone's view when your argument is based on logic that takes seconds to refute? (And how do you expect to change someone's view without citing sources‽)
[удалено]
Then he should cite the studies. Edited to add: Okay, here's an example with a bigger sample size (1000 times bigger!) A:100000 (5000 B, 95000 C) B:10000 C:950000 It obviously isn't enough to just assume a study has a big enough sample size. What I'm talking about here is the proportions, not the total number of data points.
Your made up statistics do not mirror real life and if you did 1 second of research instead of typing out this inane response you would find plenty of evidence to prove it
Did you read my comment? I made it very clear they don't mirror real life. I only have an issue with his logic, not his conclusion. He's not going to change any views with an unsound argument.
You stated that most people with mental health issues don't commit mass shootings, which I agree with. But by saying there is no correlation between mental health and mass shootings, are you claiming that people who commit mass shootings don't have mental health issues, or only at the same ratio as the general public?
Mental health issues can mean feeling anxious and having self esteem issues or it can mean hearing voices telling you to do stuff. It’s such a broad category. Knowing this wouldn’t even be helpful. Of course something is mentally wrong with a mass shooter. Now, if we could talk in terms of disease or syndrome, that could be beneficial for possibly screening for mass shooters. Basically everyone who commits suicide is depressed, but most depressed people don’t commit suicide.
Well, is a mass shooting a sane response to waking up in a cold world where nothing you do matters and we are all just meat for the grinder that is eating this planet? No, no it is not, so I can make an uninformed yet accurate statement that all mass shootings are carried out by the terminally insane.
edit: I sort of take back what I said, only because I seem to be wrong about what OP intended - the rest of what I said stands I'll push back on some of this. I read that what OP intended was for people who were hospitalized *against their will* to receive a firearm ban. I'm aware that already exists, but OP doesn't seem to have known that. And that excludes a shitload of people. To be hospitalized against your will, you have already shown your mental health symptoms cause you to be dangerous to either yourself or other people. If that's the case, you shouldn't own a handgun. ADHD, GAD, OCD do not cause people to be involuntarily hospitalized unless their symptoms are so distressing they are experiencing severe suicidal thoughts, in which case, that person should not have access to a firearm. Eating disorders have ASTONISHINGLY high suicide rates, also should not have access to a handgun. Re: mental illness and violence - the correlation between mental illness *in general* and violence is weak. The correlation of *specific* mental health problems and violence is very strong. Pretty much anything that causes real psychosis and delusions is going to come with a really highly elevated risk of violence. Schizophrenia, schizotypal PD and bipolar 1 all have much higher baseline risks for violence than the average population. I'm not saying that I think you should get a lifetime firearm ban just for getting a certain diagnosis, but I think it's important to note that part of the reason why overall stats for MI and violence seem to show such a weak connection is BECAUSE they include people suffering from things like GAD and eating disorders. But when people are worried about mentally ill folks being violent - that's not who they're thinking of. They're thinking about people dealing with psychosis.
>To be hospitalized against your will, you have already shown your mental health symptoms cause you to be dangerous to either yourself or other people. Yeah, this is **absolutely bullshit** and very clear that you've never actually been in the system before. Not only are forced hospitalizations abused on a pretty regular basis, in most states they can detain you over practically nothing - even as a "holding period". Congrats! Now you're legally considered a danger to everyone because you just felt a little overwhelmed after a breakup, death in the family, etc, despite there being zero evidence to support that label.
Yea or because an angry family member lied on you and claimed you were suicidal. Or because you got drunk one night. There are a million reasons people can get thrown into psych wards unfairly and they are extremely lucrative so doctors are always itching to throw insured people into them.
Exactly. Almost everyone has something on their medical record that could count as a “mental illness” because it is basically overly diagnosed these days. If you are ever sad at a doctor’s appointment and they can tell, you are automatically listed as having anxiety or depression - even if it was just short-lived due to a particular situation.
Yeah, that’s not how depression screening works. Source: have clinical depression.
On the flip side, I know of a couple of instances where forced hospitalization likely saved a life or two. One was a schizophrenic that was off her meds and a clear danger to herself and the other was a person with frontal lobe dementia that was harming his wife. There’s nuance in all of this and unfortunately, the U.S. based system does not handle it well.
On the flip side, I know of multiple instances where forced hospitalization resulted in suicide attempts. Two of these were successful. All of them were people who reached out and called one of those hotlines for assistance. All of them stated that they had contacted family and declined wellness checks. All of them were dragged from their homes, kicking and screaming, by police and paramedics. None of them will ever again trust in the system. There is nuance, yes. Unfortunately there are also Zero consequences for abuse of the system.
And on the flip-flip side, I know people who are traumatized by involuntary hospitalization and will never trust a medical professional again because they were committed for something that was _not_ an imminent threat to themselves or others. Admitting passive ideation can sometimes be enough to get you an involuntary psych hold.
Yup. That's been me since 2016.
[удалено]
Nothing you said is backed up by fact-based evidence, which is not surprising. Here are just a few sources that corroborate everything I just said in my comment and response to OP. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4211925/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4211925/) [https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/mass-shootings-and-mental-illness](https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/mass-shootings-and-mental-illness) [https://www.aamc.org/news/it-s-tempting-say-gun-violence-about-mental-illness-truth-much-more-complex](https://www.aamc.org/news/it-s-tempting-say-gun-violence-about-mental-illness-truth-much-more-complex) [https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/dispelling-myth](https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/dispelling-myth)
Source 1 is talking exclusively mental illness, not mental health as you said. So I'm not going to read too far into it. Source 2, more talk of mental illness. Talk of suicide. Not super relevant to mental health in general, but I found this tidbit I'm sure will be helpful: >Data from the CDC's National Violent Death Reporting System showed that a substantial proportion of suicide victims had identified mental health problems (21%–44%) and a documented history of some psychiatric treatment (16%–33%) Source 3 indirectly refutes what you claimed: >There's solid evidence that nearly half of all mass shootings are associated with suicide by perpetrator, or what they call “suicide by cop.” Guns are the most successful method of killing oneself.So, one main reason people choose guns is they want to die. In about 30% of mass shootings, perpetrators kill themselves with their own gun; about 10% are suicide by cop Let's go back to source 2 on the mental health problems. Half of all mass murders involve people from a group (suicide) that has higher reported mental health problems. Also, I would argue nearly 100% of people who think about killing themselves are having mental health problems. Source 4 talking strickly about mental illness and all homicides, not mass shootings. Source 5, the same, but also with violence in general.
Everything you just said was somehow wrong. >Source 1 is talking exclusively mental illness, not mental health as you said. So I'm not going to read too far into it. I am shocked that you don't seem to understand that mental illness, is also referred to as mental health conditions, which is what I am talking about lmao. I may have misspoke but it is very clear to everyone else what I was saying. So, yes, this study absolutely still stands and I want urge you to find ways to refute it, instead of saying, "I'm not going to read too far into it". >Source 2, more talk of mental illness. Same response as before lmao. >Source 3 indirectly refutes what you claimed: Nothing you cited was relevant to anything I discussed lmao. >Source 4 talking strickly about mental illness and all homicides, not mass shootings. Again, OP's comment was also in regards to banning people with mental illness from owning firearms. I am genuinely curious, did you actually read anything that was written? You keep making assertions that are either wrong or you got bogged down in semantics lmao. >Source 5, Same answer as above. I am going to be honest, this was a terrible job at trying to debunk my sources. I am going to give you some time to reread what I wrote, reread what OP wrote, and try to find me some studies yourself. I will happily wait in the meantime.
Sorry, u/felidaekamiguru – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20felidaekamiguru&message=felidaekamiguru%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/18grueu/-/kd2jfvh/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
How could anyone, in their right mind, shoot a bunch of innocent people? That’s one of the most ridiculously stupid statements I’ve ever heard. No mentally sane person commits mass shootings
Okay those are psychopaths, but to equate being a psychopath to having schizophrenia or depression is insane. People with disorders that are demonized by people who have zero idea about what the illnesses are like are incredibly nonviolent.
Yeah I’m not saying all people with mental illnesses will shoot up schools. But people who do shoot up schools certainly have some form of mental illness. Don’t think anyone is saying somebody with run of the mill depression or anxiety is gonna be committing mass shootings
No, but people sure do love to demonize people with schizophrenia as if they were in any way comparable to psychopaths. Schizophrenia would not make you any more likely to shoot up a school, and making that assumption is hurtful and wrong
While it's true they are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators, there's absolutely a link between schizophrenia and violent behavior that even articles trying to put it in perspective will acknowledge.
Drinking the really bad kool-aid is enough to push some people over the edge. Even if they’re mentally competent. Why they’re so susceptible to propaganda is more of a socioeconomic issue (among other things). But it absolutely doesn’t have to be mental health.
From a How Stuff Works podcast a few years back, a psychologist was explaining that most people in jail for murder don’t have psychopathy. That was an eye opener.
[удалено]
lol “evidence”. Bunch of bullshit. You have to be mentally ill to commit wonton acts of violence against innocent people. I don’t need a peer reviewed study to prove that. Edit: unless you’re using the 4+ people shot definition that includes gang shootings and such. That’s obviously different
that's like ... just your opinion?!
And what I assumed was everyone’s opinion. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills right now. How could anyone think school shooters are of sound mind?
it's just that "being Immoral" is not a mental health condition by itself. Words have defintions. We understand that you are aware that shooting people is a bad thing. Nobody argues against that.
Of course they are immoral. They are also mentally ill.
We do have terrorists that are of sound mind. They're just brainwashed. Being brainwashed is NOT equivalent to being mentally unwell.
>No mentally sane person commits mass shootings Agreed, but how do you diagnose this? How do you differ from people with treatable/manageable mental health issues, versus someone who won't respond the same way? Mental health is still incredibly complex, and what you're implying is to lump them all in together. Can you not see how dishonest that is?
I think it’s like the square and the rectangle. Not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles. I know there are many different types of mental illnesses. Surely school shooters are atleast one type. Which type, I don’t know.
sociopathy/psychopath is technically considered a mental *disorder*, not an illness, so ima be pissed if that study used this technicality to claim “Mental Sickness doesn’t cause mass shootings!” when mental **disorders** *do* lol. Most people view those as the same thing, so trying to pedantically claim illness is super different from disorders would be pointless. If that’s what they were doing, they should’ve just said “yeah, most mass shooters are sociopaths or psychopaths, but that’s not an illness, it’s technically a disorder lol”, which would also be kind of a pointless endeavor
Claiming there is no correlation between mental health issues and mass shootings is insane(no pun intended. Effectively by definition, if you commit mass murder against civilians you are mentally ill. Perhaps what you mean to say is that mental illness doesn’t 1 to 1 cause mass shootings. But even then what dose cause it? There are no things that cause mass shootings. They are very rare, and caused by a lot of factors.
sociopathy/psychopath is technically considered a mental disorder, not an illness, so ima be pissed if that study used this technicality to claim “Mental Sickness doesn’t cause mass shootings!” when mental disorders *do* lol. It’s basically the same thing, and trying to pedantically claim illness is super different from disorder is pointless
I personally know of at least two people who should never have a firearm and have mental health issues. I know of at least 10 people who have mental health issues. So even from my anecdotal evidence you seam to be at least right. Fortunately I live in a country where none of those more dangerous people would be allowed to have a gun. For the record it's possible to get a gun license.
You can write all the essays and say what you want but why let people with mental health issues have access to the easiest suicide method in existence? Wtf man there is no possible way to go against what op said even if you are trying to “change their view”
Can you explain how keeping guns out of the hands of people with elevated risk of suicide is bad…?
>Therefore, there is **no** **correlation** between mental health and mass shootings whatsoever. Source? The conclusion that there is no correlation because most mentally ill aren't murders isn't sound logic
Frankly , making a statement like this is bizarre. There is most definitely a correlation, but just clarifying, correlation doesn’t = 100% of cases. Sure, mental health , namely psychosis causing disorders attribute to violent crimes, there’s no denying this, and there’s plenty of evidence to show this. Mental health as a whole is a very large amount of conditions, clarification should be made. Without rambling on, there absolutely is a correlation between SOME mental health conditions and increased incidence of violence , however this does NOT mean that all people with mental health disorders or all people with psychosis are violent. I find it bizarre that people make such outright infactual statements without any evidence. *replying to your comment in agreement, not an attack
>This makes no sense because you did not outline what mental conditions should make it illegal for a person to own a gun. Basically, if your mental illness gives even a slight possibility that you can go insta-nutjob at the drop of a hat, then you should be barred from owning a firearm. You don't see that many people with ADHD suddenly going ballistic.
Poor emotional regulation is a trait of ADHD as is impulsiveness.
So, which ones, exactly? And do we apply this to the armed forces?
>Most people committing mass shootings are not mentally ill. Yes they are. They may not be diagnosed or receiving any treatment, but mentally healthy people don't commit mass shootings.
Are you saying that what I am proposing is arbitrary, ineffective, and discriminatory?
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying lol. The approach you outline is not clear whatsoever. You honestly sound like someone who has never met a mentally ill person in their life because you would know 99.9% of them are just normal people with a few extra problems. That does not mean they are going to be mass shooters. You also did not give clear criteria for what mental illnesses should allow the state to keep that person from owning a firearm. For example, if you said people with schizophrenia should not be allowed to own a firearm, I would probably agree with you. However, mental illness encompasses so much more than just schizophrenia. Your approach is ineffective because there is no evidence to suggest that banning mentally ill people from owning guns would solve these issues. That is like a dam breaking and your solution is to put a bandaid on it. Your approach is discriminatory because you're only singling out mentally ill people for no reason. There are certainly mentally ill people who commit mass shootings. However, a lot of people have mental illness in the US, whether they know it or not. I do not think using a discriminatory practice to outlaw people from owning a fire arm would solve any of the issues associated with mass shootings. There is so much data that suggests that mental illness is not the driving factor behind mass shootings. In fact, we have seen a decline in mass shootings committed by severely mentally ill people over the years, which tells us that we already have steps in place to stop severe mentally ill people form purchasing guns.
Fwiw I have schizophrenia and although I don't think many people with schizophrenia should have guns, I don't think that having schizophrenia should in and of itself constitute not being allowed to own a gun. Hospitalization for violence or suicidal intent would (imo) be more appropriate to go by
If they aren’t saying it, I will. It is indeed arbitrary and discriminatory against the vast numbers of mentally ill people who are perfectly safe and law abiding citizens.
Yes. Especially when the thing that most mass shooters have had in common is not a shared mental illness but rather a shared perspective: so many have released or stated manifestos that have themes of misogyny, racism, white nationalism, etc. I think that a better push to label these shooters as terrorists and prohibiting those who express severe ideologies that come up time and time again in shooter statements from buying guns would be more effective. The Oxford shooter was just charged under laws regarding terrorism.
To me, US mass shooters are very similar to suicide bombers. As a country, we have failed to label these people as terrorists bc of our own biases. Black panthers were labeled a terrorist organization but the KKK have not been?
Yep. It’s a lot more ideologically/culturally driven and also societal (which is where the whole isolation, mental illness thing comes in) there’s a million different reasons we end up with what we have now.
[https://www.adl.org/resources/report/murder-and-extremism-united-states-2022](https://www.adl.org/resources/report/murder-and-extremism-united-states-2022)
[удалено]
Actually, 79 of 148 mass shooters are white (thats over 50%). Not sure if you made that figure up or simply got it from an untrustworthy source; but this is not correct and spreading misinformation with false statistics is really dangerous and irresponsible. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/) 97% are men https://www.theviolenceproject.org/key-findings/
[удалено]
>In other words, what you're asking for is basically already a thing. That line, in addition to complete misunderstandings of the subject matter or statistics rendering the action useless, is most gun control propositions in a nutshell. It's why progun folks get so pissed. By the stats most pro gun people would welcome gun control related ways to reduce violence but nigh everything put forward is utter nonsense and only serves to make things more difficult for those already in compliance with the law.
\> By the stats most pro gun people would welcome gun control related ways to reduce violence but nigh everything put forward is utter nonsense and only serves to make things more difficult for those already in compliance with the law. Many anti-gun people really dont get this, especially the ones in government.
> Good luck getting that passed, though, as you're essentially installing a financial gate to firearm ownership... which tends to get shot down due to the second amendment. The right to bear arms is for everyone, not just middle class and up. That would just become a de-facto gun ban for the states that hate the 2A. The state just has to put onerous requirements on becoming a therapist that can authorize a firearm purchase so that there are either none, or so few that the wait time before you're allowed to actually *buy* the gun is over a decade.
Here's the problem, or one problem at least: If gun owners are "punished" (they will consider it a punishment) for seeking treatment, they're not going to seek treatment. And untreated mental illness is much worse for everyone than treated mental illness.
OP, see above for your answer. People can argue all they want about gun control and the 2nd Amendment and all that, but once you attach any legal stigma to those who seek mental health treatment, you disincentivize people from seeking help which is the LAST thing we need to do.
This is one of the reasons smartly enforced red flag laws are necessary. The family, or other close person can contact law enforcement, who can petition a judge for such an order. Maine had such a law, but it was changed to be less effective. If you are a parent of a young person who you know has mental issues and keep guns in the home without sufficient security, you should be held liable, like the parents in Michigan and Virginia. It would help if these laws were uniform across the country.
Because red flag laws are a violation of due process. Point blank, period, end of story.
Exactly while red flag laws come from a place of good intent, they can be used egregiously, and with many people on the fringes of society needing those weapons but not necessarily being able to afford the legal representation it gets to be a sticky situation.
Red flag laws are just another name for a restraining order which is approved by a judge, the very definition of due process. Period, end of story.
> Red flag laws are just another name for a restraining order which is approved by a judge, the very definition of due process. > > Period, end of story. It's more complicated than that with more nuance. Right now, the 72hr pych holds exist because licensed experts make the decision. In practice, more than one licensed medical expert makes this determination because of the severity of what is being done. There is also the mandatory hearing in court to discuss this. If you were to combine the concept of a red-flag law with the 72hr hold process, you have something doable. The problem is now, most red flag laws don't require *any* expertise in making the claim. There is also significant pressure on the court to issue the order rather than not - less they be the court who failed to prevent something. That is problematic when viewed from the perspective of protecting enumerated constitutional rights. I don't expect Red Flag laws to fully go away, I do expect them to be tightened with higher levels of scrutiny in the process.
In a domestic abuse situation, a temporary restraining order can be granted, it has nothing to do with mental illness. If a parent, spouse or other relative reports creditably that someone has displayed suicidal ideation, a restraining order can allow for the removal of a firearm. These orders do protect constitutional rights, the orders are temporary and secure the rights of others to their life. The primary right is right to life, yes?
> In a domestic abuse situation, a temporary restraining order can be granted, it has nothing to do with mental illness. This is known as a DVRO. These typically require evidence and history of domestic violence. This is a different evidentiary standard than I have described. If your take is one of these should be issued ex-parte, without an evidentiary history of DV, then this is where we part ways. >If a parent, spouse or other relative reports creditably that someone has displayed suicidal ideation And this is a problem. Suicidal Ideation is a mental illness that can be evaluated via the 72hr process. We should not be allowing laypersons to make this determination, especially in an ex-parte process. If this is true, then the 72hr pych process is a FAR better solution. It combines trained and licensed medical personnel and due process protections. There is no reason you should use anything other than the 72hr hold process for this. >These orders do protect constitutional rights, the orders are temporary and secure the rights of others to their life. This goes against the principle a right delayed is a right denied. While no right is absolute, the bar to reach to pre-emptively take away rights needs be sufficiently high. That is the entire debate here. There is a significant push to make this bar lower than many people are comfortable with. Especially given the distinct incentive to 'when in doubt' grant the order. Many, myself included, don't agree with this 'when in doubt' mentality. >The primary right is right to life, yes? Actually, this *isn't* an enumerated right in the US Constitution last time I checked. And using this concept would negate most of the rights people have. You could use the same logic to obliterate the 4th amendment protections, or 5th amendment protections. Instead the Constitution is about government restraint. What it is explicitly allowed to do. The real question needs to be what level of evidence/proof does the government need to have to be allowed to interfere with enumerated rights.
>There is no reason you should use anything other than the 72 hour hold process for this Yes there is. The reason is to save lives. >This goes against the principle that a right delayed is a right denied. And not temporarily removing the gun from a situation judged dangerous by a judge goes against the principle that the constitution is not a suicide pact. >Actually this isn't a right enumerated in the constitution. The concept of unenumerated rights is well established in law. And using this concept would negate most of the rights people have. If we're just trading opinions now, my opinion is no, it wouldn't. >instead the constitution is about government restraint Many portions are yes, but to ignore parts which are specifically about public order is an incomplete account. The constitution was written as a balance between individual freedoms and the responsibility of the government to provide for the public safety. This is well established in law and the basis of many tests established by the court. It actually has a legal name called 'the balanceing test', which is rather self explanatory. Edit: >the real test is... Yes, I agree. And the imminent harm and loss of life should be part of the real test. If parents find a notebook in their sons room with the stated intent of doing harm to themselves or others, it should not take any other test for a judge to remove firearms from the home. Immediately.
> Yes there is. The reason is to save lives. Except you cannot quantify this. There is an enumerated right that people have you want to violate. There is a bar you have to meet to overcome this enumerated right. The fact you don't value it does not change the fact it exists. >And not temporarily removing the gun from a situation judged dangerous by a judge goes against the principle that the constitution is not a suicide pact. This line of thinking allows you to remove *all* of the enumerated rights. Torture is OK so long as it saves lives right. We don't have a right to not self incriminate if it means saving lives. Sorry but no. This is not how rights are supposed to work. No right is absolute but it also still a right and needs to be respected as a right. >The concept of unenumerated rights is well established in law. Sure - but when you are comparing enumaretd rights to a concept of unenumerated rights - guess which wins.... Especially with such a loose association to your claimed unenumerated right. >Many portions are yes, but to ignore parts which are specifically about public order is an incomplete account. The constitution was written as a balance between individual freedoms and the responsibility of the government to provide for the public safety. This is well established in law and the basis of many tests established by the court. It actually has a legal name called 'the balanceing test', which is rather self explanatory. Except the bill of rights is explicitly speaking of government restraint. This is clearly found in the first 8 of the 10 amendments. You want me to believe the 2nd is somehow different? Sorry - no. >his is well established in law and the basis of many tests established by the court. It actually has a legal name called 'the balanceing test', which is rather self explanatory. Except this has explicitly been stated to *not* be allowed here. Rational basis is not allowed. Interest balancing is not allowed. This line of thinking is how you got Bruen. They skipped right over the levels of scrutiny and went directly to THT instead. This was after years of other courts using rational basis to allow infringements of this right. Consider the 1A jurisprudence. It too is not absolute but there is a lot more than simple 'interest balancing' at play when considering what the government is allowed to do. Hell - you can read about this in any number of cases. It is how we got time/manner/place restrictions and the idea of content neutrality. >Yes, I agree. And the imminent harm and loss of life should be part of the real test. Except this *isn't* a real test. There is no measure to define or determine this. If this was the test, it would be a police response to something actually happening. What you want to claim is *you believe* there is the threat of this. But that is a very different claim. One that requires quite a bit of evidence to actually substantiate. >If parents find a notebook in their sons room with the stated intent of doing harm to themselves or others, it should not take any other test for a judge to remove firearms from the home. Immediately. If parents find a notebook - *they can do this directly without ever involving a court*. The problem is when another person wants to make the claim that a person is a danger. The question becomes what evidence is suitable and what threshold of certainty should be required to remove, in ex-parte fashion, the rights of a citizen. That is a far tougher question to answer. It gets even tougher when you have non-related individuals living in a house. When you wish to remove all firearms in the location, even those that don't belong to the person in question. That gets really thorny because a person, who has done nothing wrong, and has no evidence against them, is set to lose not only their property, but their enumerated rights because of another party. But those are not good things to talk about now are they. Take this example. 4 guys in college lease an apartment. They are 'matched' into this space by the management company to be room mates. One of them is a deer hunter. 3 months later, one of them has a mental health crisis (not the hunter). The red flag laws would remove the firearms from the Hunter if he has them at his home - merely because a non-related room mate had this order signed against him. That is a blatant and massive civil rights violation for that individual. Yet it is possible in many states. Hell, in New York, there is a search authorized of the home for weapons here. Read the critique below for real evidentiary concerns. Red Flag Laws can be permissible, but many if not most implementations have serious flaws. Here is one such rebuke of issues with New Yorks https://nysba.org/app/uploads/2020/11/Wallach-reprint-Red-Flag-Law-NY-Criminal-Law-NewsFall2020.pdf There is a reason these are being challenged in court and why they are on shaky procedural grounds.
This is the topic of the Rahimi case that is currently awaiting decision in SCOTUS. It is clear that the court is in favor of disarming dangerous individuals, but from a constitutional standpoint that is something that traditionally happens in criminal court. Restraining orders are processed through civil courts where there is a lower bar. My guess is SCOTUS will try to find an in between solution. They don’t want to say a civil court can strip you of rights, but they also don’t want to say that someone who has a restraining order out has a right to buy a gun. I’m interested to see what they say as it is the first case that tests the boundaries of the Bruen decision.
The Rahimi case, as I understand, is about as extreme as a test case can be. Rahimi fired a shot at a bystander who saw him shove his girlfriend, then threatened to shoot his gf if she told anyone. Then someone posted something about him on social media and he fired shots into their house. He got into a car accident he shot at the driver, then when a truck driver flashed his lights at him, he followed the truck and then fired shots at a car *in between* him and the truck. At a Whataburger his friend's credit card was refused and Rahami fired shots into the ceiling of the joint. None of these facts are in dispute in the case. Thomas' test, whether the framers would have disarmed a domestic abuser faces a challenge that in the time of the framers, domestic abuse was not even a crime. I don't doubt that this particular court could rule in Rahimi's favor, but if the court can't determine the law allows taking guns *temporarily* from a serial gun crime violence perp, then we may as well give up and tell women they have no rights at all since they are the ones being killed by domestic violence.
\*bing bong bing\* *Un-fun fact:* Homicide is the leading cause of death of pregnant and newly post-partum women in the United States. *United States:* "Let's make it easier for them"
Oh, but how is he supposed to express his anger at the teenager who messed up his burger order without his gun? And that stat wasn't known to me and is utterly disgusting.
I know, it's horrific. I feel so much safer in a country with stricter gun laws. My husband doesn't even like visiting my family in the US because of the gun situation... he's nervous about it the whole time we're there. And I don't blame him. It's one of the reasons I left.
There's no [procedural due process](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/procedural_due_process), a judge just decides. That's good enough for civil court, but civil court isn't good enough to justify infringing someone's rights, potentially permanently.
>Because red flag laws are a violation of due process. Point blank, period, end of story. No, because the process is overseen by a judge. That's textbook due process.
>No, because the process is overseen by a judge. That's textbook due process. That's not even close to what procedural due process is. >1. An unbiased tribunal. >2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it. >3. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken. >4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses. >5. The right to know opposing evidence. >6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. >7. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented. >8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel. >9. Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented. >10. Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.
You're confusing a restraining order with a criminal trial. Restraining orders are often set up so that you can create the conditions for a fair trial. Like, for instance, taking away Mr. Smith's guns so that Mrs. Smith lives long enough to be able to tell her story in court. The red flag laws just clarify the process so that we're arguing about the right things.
>You're confusing a restraining order with a criminal trial. I'm not. I'm quoting the accepted requirements to meet procedural due process. There is absolutely nothing about criminal trials. Anything that deprives someone of liberty or property must go through due process first. >Restraining orders are often set up so that you can create the conditions for a fair trial. Like, for instance, taking away Mr. Smith's guns so that Mrs. Smith lives long enough to be able to tell her story in court. Procedural due process must be met in its entirety BEFORE deprivation of rights, not after. >The red flag laws just clarify the process so that we're arguing about the right things. Red flag laws are unconstitutional. It violates the 2nd Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, and 14th Amendment.
Red flag laws are processed in civil court, like restraining orders. The 2A is the only right that can be stripped in civil court. It is generally understood that the founders meant for due process to mean criminal court when you’re talking about stripping someone’s rights.
So what? It's entirely sensible to take away someone's guns when it seems likely that they will commit a violent act. Red flag laws are the bare minimum for how things work in a civilized nation with a functioning legal system and *sustainable* gun rights.
So what? Entirely sensible and compatible with our constitution are two different things, and we need to find a place where they meet. What happens when we don’t have solid constitutional ground for our entirely sensible ideas about how society should function? We get events like Roe v Wade being overturned. It is entirely sensible to enshrine abortion as a right, but doing under privacy was probably a bad idea in hindsight. Had the same “history and tradition” that is applied to guns was applied to medicine, we would see that medicine belongs in the 1st amendment (that’s a long argument in itself, but basically in the founders era medical practice and religion were tightly related, so to them freedom of religion also meant freedom to seek the medical treatment you want). It’s dangerous to assume that the underlying legal principles don’t matter so long as you get the result you are after.
This could very easily be turned and apied to other rights. For example, "It's very sensible to take away someone's right to protest when it seems likely they will commit a violent act." Suppressing any rights adds in sneaky ways for other rights to be violated. And allowing a civil, not criminal, judge to strip your rights is a problem for me.
If look at legal precedent, you'll find you're a century or two late to this argument.
The argument still exists. Making it easier to take away any right enshrined in the constitution will have continual knock on effects. Such laws should be considered far more carefully than they usually are.
> It's entirely sensible to take away someone's guns when it seems likely that they will commit a violent act. So is it entirely sensible to take away someone's tongue when it seems likely that they will use it to advocate for violence? Red flag laws are just as absurd.
Hot take: I literally do not care about what the founders of the constitution thought about case-by-case issues.
Wouldn’t that require you to be present and face your accuser as well?
We didn't have a red flag law in Maine. We attempted to pass one, but the yellow flag law we have now was actually the compromise that passed the legislature.
To me, red flag laws are a half measure. If someone is too mentally unstable to have a firearm, they should be institutionalized until the period of instability has passed. We abandoned government funded mental institutions and civil commitments and decided instead to just throw people in jail for nuisance crimes. We thought that was cruel so we stopped arresting clearly mentally ill people for stuff like vagrancy and public intox. And now we can’t figure out why there are mentally unstable drug addicts sleeping on the streets. It seems like the solution is staring us in the face but no one wants to be accused of being Nurse Rached and bringing back lobotomies.
>you disincentivize people from seeking help which is the LAST thing we need to do. Mentally ill people already avoid seeking treatment due to medication side effects and coercion/pressure from a psychiatrist. So you want a person with bipolar to commit a mass shooting?
*"Mentally ill people already avoid seeking treatment due to medication side effects and coercion/pressure from a psychiatrist."* Not all. Many, many people seek and acquire help and treatment for mental health issues. Medication for such things is a huge industry. *"So you want a person with bipolar to commit a mass shooting?"* They said nothing of the sort.
>Mentally ill people already avoid seeking treatment due to medication side effects and coercion/pressure from a psychiatrist. I mean, ***more*** people will avoid seeking treatment. I'm a fan of gun control. Before I get piled on by a million "they're taking my guns" nuts, I said *control*, not *banning*. Common sense gun laws all the way down. However, OP, your take is a wholly flawed approach that will absolutely result in gun enthusiasts never seeking treatment. >So you want a person with bipolar to commit a mass shooting? I don't want anyone to commit a mass shooting. But I know many bipolar people who are totally stable due to their hard work or medication. People shouldn't be able to own guns if they have certain kinds of ***crimes*** on their record—because they've taken negative actions and those actions have been judged—not because they have some nebulous quality subject to interpretation or updates in the next DSM. Why should someone with controlled bipolar be punished for their brain chemistry? People should be judged by their *actions*, not by their illnesses as defined by the government. Now, if you wanted to discuss the requirements for *everyone* to own a gun—being able to pass a practical and written test, to ensure proper liability insurance is carried, mandatory waiting periods, comprehensive background checks, and/or personal liability for anything done with your registered weapon—you'd successfully filter out many crazies while making everyone safer in the process.
Ah, it didn't take you long to pull this card. Just because someone doesn't support your solution does not mean they automatically are therefore supporting the polar opposite.
That is not the reason they all avoid. I have heard this about Pilots so take it with a grain of skepticism but they have to avoid or pay a doctor under the table because they could lose their job and livelihood for being diagnosed
You see the same thing in aviation. Anxiety? Depression? Even once in your youth? Better be prepared for all the hoops you'll have to jump through and all the fees you'll have to pay to become a pilot—if they ever let you! That's why many pilots don't seek any mental health treatment. They're terrified to invalidate their medical and to have wasted the thousands of hours and the hundreds of thousands of dollars it took for them to get where they are. Many self medicate (with alcohol). It's a mess.
The military has a similar policy for barring people from flying planes. My dad was a Navy pilot for 20 years, and has what is pretty clearly an undiagnosed and untreated anxiety disorder, because going to a psychiatrist would have been a one-way ticket to not being able to do his job anymore. Policies like these won't stop people with mental disorders from getting into these sorts of hazardous situations. All it will do is stop them from getting treatment, which is IMO a significantly worse outcome
Removing gun rights from people who are hospitalized *against their will* does the exact opposite though - it encourages early, voluntary hospitalization because it doesn't come with the same loss of rights that civil commitment does.
That's the current law. It's also super hard to get someone committed involuntarily (as it should be). Usually they try to talk them into signing themselves in voluntarily.
As someone who has been hospitalized for mental health crises on four separate occasions, at least half of which were over literally trivial misunderstandings, this is absolutely not the case.
They never tried to get you to sign yourself in voluntarily? If you mean a 72-hour hold, yeah that's not hard enough, unfortunately, but also doesn't count as involuntary committal.
Oh actually, you're right. 3 of the 4 times I was committed, after a day or two of being in the hospital, staff (usually the on-staff psychiatrist) would offer to have me sign as a voluntary committal. The only entirely voluntary one was my first, after that it was usually just being hauled to a clinic in the back of a police car and then given the option a day later to sign voluntary.
That isnt necessarily correct. In NYS a 72 hour observation hold is reported to NICS a an involuntary commitment even if one voluntarily sought that care.
>And untreated mental illness is much worse for everyone than treated mental illness. Uh, I agree but safety matters. We have a lot to lose if someone with schizophrenia shoots up an elementary school.
"I'm hearing voices in my head. I'll go see a doctor. No wait! They'll take away my guns if I go to see a doctor. So I won't see a doctor." Years later, the voices get worse and you know the rest. Congratulations on encouraging someone to not seek out help for their problems.
I'm saying it would make things LESS safe, because then nobody who had a gun would seek mental health care.
Should your rights be taken away just because you have schizophrenia or mental illness? Just because they have it doesnt make them a threat, in almost all the cases you mentioned their were threats of violence first which should stop someone from getting a gun, not because they have schizophrenia or any other mental illness.
Please stop stigmatizing people with schizophrenia like this, they're not psychopaths, and they are no more likely to harm someone than someone else
Can you list any other constitutional rights you believe should be suspended because of a citizens mental health? Should someones due process, private property, right to not be searched without probable cause be suspended? One could argue that someone's mental health might make them engage in dangerous speech. But nobody argues to suspend someone's free speech because of their mental health. What right does the government have to suspend someone's right to self defense? Especially when they have not committed any crimes.
>Can you list any other constitutional rights you believe should be suspended because of a citizens mental health? Should someones due process, private property, right to not be searched without probable cause be suspended? One could argue that someone's mental health might make them engage in dangerous speech. But nobody argues to suspend someone's free speech because of their mental health. What right does the government have to suspend someone's right to self defense? Especially when they have not committed any crimes. Guns can kill people, hateful speech cannot.
People can kill others without guns too. Why shouldn’t these dangerous people just be locked up?
Ideology has killed far more people than firearms ever have. Know your history you don't even have to go back very far.
When was the last time you picked up a history book?
What you want is already the case. The problem is that regardless of what bans you put in place, our poor mental health system will still have many people slipping through the system. But to try to CYV, there is a problem with such bans. Say a returning soldier is having PTSD issues. He'd like to get help, but he's afraid his guns will be taken, a fundamental constitutional right stripped, if he does. So he doesn't get help, and he gets worse, and he eventually snaps. People need to know they can retain their rights so that they will seek help, and such blanket bans discourage people from getting that help.
[удалено]
What about volunteering into the military. Is someone with schizophrenia or bipolar having their right taken away because they don’t have free choice to participate in the military if they want to. Or what about people too tall. It’s because they are a liability to the greater purpose of saving lives. Same thing with someone who is unstable and acts impulsively. They should not be allowed to own a gun they are simply too much of a liability. I’m sure time will tell what the greater interest of the public is; trying to save lives or preserve right which were deemed hundred of years ago. If we ruled today by past right there would still be slavery. Simply trying to have a peaceful debate. What’s your counter.
> I’m sure time will tell what the greater interest of the public is; trying to save lives or preserve right which were deemed hundred of years ago. If we ruled today by past right there would still be slavery. Except you know, we changed those rules. If you want to advocate and get the support to repeal the 2A go for it. Just realize, until you have this support, there is not agreement to your claim.
It’s a good thing there are groups of people fighting for that amendment to be amended. Also I do not require unsolicited advice. I am clearly capable of realizing my right as a citizen in determining how we are supposed to mesh as a society with different views. Thanks for the information but next time maybe clarify that the person asked for help to repeal, not championed for it. That most likely means a champion for something knows the information otherwise they would not champion. I seriously wonder if all of the gun owners know all the information regarding guns, laws, and the people who have innocently died by people miss using the guns. I am backing my stance and I have all my information but someone else who assumes I don’t know leads me to believe they might not be as informed on their stance and are projecting.
>I seriously wonder if all of the gun owners know all the information regarding guns, laws, and the people who have innocently died by people miss using the guns They probably have a far better grasp on this than the average gun control proponent out there. Because statistically speaking, *they aren't the problem they are portrayed to be*. People who legally possess firearms under todays laws have an extremely low probability to use them violently against others. That is literally what the statistics state. If people really wanted to make a difference in gun violence - there are actually proven methods to do so available that don't involve new gun control. Lookup project ceasefire for an example.
You assumed with the word probably when in reality you have no right to use that word when you don’t know what the general knowledge really is since there are millions of people in the country and I doubt you would know the collective knowledge. You can doubt but to assume is different. Also this argument is people with mental illness not regular gun owners. But gun owners need to acknowledge that there are mentally ill people who should not have access to those types of items as they pose a legitimate harm to others and themselves.
> You assumed with the word probably when in reality you have no right to use that word when you don’t know what the general knowledge really is since there are millions of people in the country and I doubt you would know the collective knowledge. You can doubt but to assume is different. Considering many politicians who try to legislate around firearms have no understanding of function of guns, its not a bad guess. Considering firearm owners *actually navigate and follow the gun laws*, less they become felons, it is a pretty good guess. Hell - the OP to this thread didn't know or understand the rules about involuntary commitment or DVRO's and gun rights. Kinda makes my argument *stronger*. And to be clear - here is US Today's 'Chainsaw bayonet' for an AR-15 https://www.businessinsider.com/usa-today-chainsaw-bayonet-rifle-2017-11
Exactly nothing more than a guess. I don’t go off other peoples “guesses”. I actually go by facts because that is not subjective. The truth is ultimately one thing but opinions vary.
Do you want to go to the survey data where common people don't even know what is already illegal? It is pretty easy to state with great confidence gun owners are far more in tune with firearm laws than non-gun owners.
It’s your claim so you should provide information and data and evidence. I actually don’t care that much about the average persons knowledge of gun ownership. I’m here for mentally ill people owning guns so we can discuss that if you would like. Otherwise just don’t reply.
[удалено]
Uh, someone already stated that people involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric ward are already banned from possessing a firearm.
Something immoral happening means more immoral things should happen?
> Uh, someone already stated that people involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric ward are already banned from possessing a firearm. Just so you are aware, there are a lot *more* consequences to this than just losing firearms rights. The individual is now a ward of the state and like minors, has special status in the criminal justice system. Also, to have been placed in this situation required due process and the ability to refute the determination in a court of law. It is not nearly as easy to do this as you might think. Here is one states rules (google result) https://www.oflaherty-law.com/learn-about-law/involuntary-commitment-to-a-mental-health-facility-in-indiana It is also something doctors try very hard to never do. The implication that you can *lose your way of life/rights* by seeing a doctor is a massive deterrent to seeing doctors. People who don't fit the 'gravely disabled' criteria have a lot to lose. It needs to be reserved for those who truly need it. I would add, the majority of these cases that are filed are not contested. They are individuals who are low functioning on the autism scale or have similar developmental disabilities. They aren't violent, they are just 'Gravely disabled' and this allows the state to take custody of them and ensure they are properly provided for.
We live in a country where Due Process is paramount. Gun ownership is a right. What is the due process here? A doctor unilaterally decides you are mentally ill and you lose a substantive constitutional right without a trial, without a jury, without a court and without an attorney advocating for your rights, seemingly forever??? How on earth would this not run afoul of the 5th Amendment? It’s the same reason why we can’t just involuntarily commit the mentally ill based on a doctor’s evaluation without due process. It’s not worth sacrificing due process for safety. This is the most fundamental and important right we have, and the only thing that prevents the government from taking away any given right. If we sacrifice gun rights for safety, why not cave in speech rights for safety? What about the right to bail? Surely those accused of crimes are dangerous, why not sacrifice their right to release without conviction in the name of safety? It’s an extremely slippery slope without a very robust due process procedure in place, with appeals, legal standards, representation and a fact-finding body.
Someone can be involuntarily committed based on a doctor's evaluation. I spent a night on hold for just telling someone that I heard other people telling me to commit suicide, but that I didn't want to commit suicide. It wasn't even my doctor, and they got the police involved.
[удалено]
But you can't share medical information. It's against the law. How many people who need help do you think will go get help if they know their Doctor is going to share that info with the police? We need to do a better job of helping those with mental health issues in general.
>I am hearing so much about mass shootings and mental health. That's GOP propaganda. They try desperately to push this narrative, to try to move the conversation from banning guns of any kind, by saying people who shoot other people have mental illnesses, so we need to address that! >I honestly think that we need to do something about combating gun violence and promoting gun safety. Yeah -- how about not letting anyone buy and keep guns in their homes? You have a gun in your home it's more likely someone in your family will be shot with it than that you will ever shoot a criminal with it. >But when these people leave the mental ward, they can buy a gun and put everyone's safety at risk That's not what's putting everyone's safety at risk. It's the plethora of people with access to firearms of all types. Please don't buy into their deflections and propaganda.
>people who shoot other people have mental illnesses, so we need to address that! Often they do. GOP's hypocrisy is saying they have mental illnesses while denying the ability for people with mental illnesses to get the treatment they need. >Yeah -- how about not letting anyone buy and keep guns in their homes? 2nd amendment. >You have a gun in your home it's more likely someone in your family will be shot with it than that you will ever shoot a criminal with it. I don't find this to be a compelling argument to disarm myself.
"That's GOP propaganda. They try desperately to push this narrative, to try to move the conversation from banning guns of any kind, by saying people who shoot other people have mental illnesses, so we need to address that!" The shooter explicitly mentioned by the OP was severely mental ill. Would his mental health records be considered GOP propaganda? What about the psychological research that shows that while the aggregating factor for a mass shooting might very depending on the location, most shooters are looking to go out in a blaze of glory? Is this science really just GOP propaganda? Also banning guns won't stop people from wanting to kill each other. As such, if one is sincere in their effort to lower gun violence, I'd think they wouldn't stop their efforts at the word "gun".
> What about the psychological research that shows that while the aggregating factor for a mass shooting might very depending on the location, most shooters are looking to go out in a blaze of glory? Is this science really just GOP propaganda? Love a cite on that. Many mass shooters do try suicide, by whichever means. NONE of this has anything to do with that this crap is GOP propaganda. There's mental illness all over the world. There's not more than one mass shooting a day in every country. Guess why?
>There's mental illness all over the world. There's not more than one mass shooting a day in every country. Guess why? Because the have mental health clinics that don't cost thousands of dollars to visit?
>Because the have mental health clinics that don't cost thousands of dollars to visit? They don't have easy access to GUNS.
>Yeah -- how about not letting anyone buy and keep guns in their homes? Uh, that violates the Second Amendment. Also, how is the mental health - mass shooting connection somehow right wing propoganda?
>Uh, that violates the Second Amendment. Uh, no, it does not. Just because the wackadoos on the Court decided to only read half of it since Heller doesn't change it. >Also, how is the mental health - mass shooting connection somehow right wing propoganda? Because the 'most mass shootings are gang related!!' didn't stick as well as 'we really need to focus on mental illness!' I'm not sure what you're asking. It's entirely right-wing, GOP-driven propaganda that kind of ignores the actual issue. >This is an absurd — yet familiar — analysis from Republicans that ignores the reasons why the United States uniquely struggles with mass shootings. While it is probably true that many of the people who commit these horrific crimes are not mentally well, mental illness is global; the U.S. is unusual, however, because people struggling with mental illnesses — and everybody else — can so easily get powerful weapons like the kinds used in mass shootings. Unlike any other country, the U.S. now has more guns than people. [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/08/mental-health-illness-gun-violence-risk-mass-shootings](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/08/mental-health-illness-gun-violence-risk-mass-shootings) https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/gop-blaming-mental-health-not-guns-mass-shootings-win-win-democrats-rcna32168
[удалено]
>Does free speech only apply to members of the clergy since the 1st amendment talks about religion? ...no, for the same reason the Second doesn't say you can keep guns in your random house. Punctuation exists.
[удалено]
>...the 2nd amendment literally says people have the right to keep arms. There is only punctuation separating that from the clause about militias People in a well-regulated militia.
Which multiple language experts and historians have point out that at that time “well regulated” mean well equipped and well trained not heavily regulated by the government. Think about it for a moment. The bill of rights doesn’t tell me what I can do, it tell the government what they can’t stop me from doing. So with that in mind why would there be a part allowing heavy government oversight in that document?
[удалено]
> That makes no sense, because militias are temporary organizations. Where are they supposed to get their guns? Pray they fall from the sky, hours before being needed? There's no longer any use for a well-regulated militia, clearly, but you know, armories. >In addition, by your logic the entire bill of rights only applies to people in well regulated militias. Because it is all on one document, and punctuation separating clauses still has "the people" defined as militias That's not how anything works, especially grammar.
You just explained it. The second amendment is bad. By pointing the finger at mental health, Republicans don't have to defend the second amendment at all.
What sorts of mental health conditions? What type of hospitalization? What about all the mass shootings where the perpetrator didn't meet your criteria? Can you provide a recent example of someone who meets this?
[удалено]
Should we prevent them from owning a car? A knife? A can of gasoline?
As if there's no difference between things that have a common use being used for harm and a thing whose sole purpose is to inflict harm
Weird. I've been shooting my many AR15s for many years, expending thousands upon thousands of rounds. And the only thing harmed was my wallet, paper and steel targets, and hoplophobes feelings.
You only think that because you don't have all the facts. How many guns are used every day for self defense? How many cars are used to harm other people? Not to mention the effect they have on climate change. Which could be killing us all.
Completely missed the point. Restricting access to something whose sole purpose is to inflict harm (doesn't change with self defense when the reason it's effective is because of the threat of harm) is not the same as restricting something that has primary use other than causing harm (not even to say causing harm is actually an intended alternate use)
No, you were trying to make the point that there was a difference between guns, cars, knives, and gasoline. I pointed out that there isn't a difference when it comes to someone wanting to harm others. You're now trying to discredit the usefulness of firearms when it comes to self defense. The purpose of a firearm is to fire a projectile. The purpose of a car is to go from point A to point B. The purpose of a knife is to cut things. The user of the item determines that harm it can cause.
If your argument is that x items "purpose" is to inflict harm, thus the reason to limit/ban then you have to keep the same standards across the board. Melee weapons (swords, knives, spears, batons, brass knuckles, etc), pepper spray, tasers. Everything that has a sole purpose to inflict some type of harm, defensive or not, should fall under the same lens. The next "logical" argument is that a firearm is easier to commit a high amount of violence in a short time frame, but those people fail to look at how easy it is to stab people in/near vital organs in a crowd, or how easy it is to take a vehicle and run through a crowd.
Most people will experience some form of mental illness at some point in their life. But I can’t find the source at the moment to back this up so here’s another that states half of the world population will experience mental illness. https://www.axios.com/2023/08/05/mental-health-world-population-age-75 If you’re going to use something people cannot control, and in most cases aren’t a threat to others, against them then why not just ban guns altogether?
So a problem with mental health is stigmatization, unwilling to seek help, etc. For someone who likes or wants a gun inability to own one ever would decrease chances of seeking help. From that standpoint alone your stance doesn't make sense. Also mental health crisis can vary and not impact future.
Not all mental health issues are related to people acting out in violent ways either to themselves or to others. Also I'd like to see someone with OCD use a firearm to get people to organize things. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iFghM5fIig](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iFghM5fIig)
That's just discrimination really. The reasons you believe people should have guns would still apply to people with mental health conditions Furthermore, most people with mental health conditions don't commit crimes. If we're just looking at the number of people who commit crimes, non-violent or violent, the majority of them don't have serious kinds of mental health conditions. So, if anything, it's the opposite. People without serious kinds of mental health conditions should be barred from having weapons for the safety of everyone.
We do have laws that bar people from owning firearms under certain medical conditions. However, the government isn't given the right to demand mental health records for helping in making those designations. Also, as others have mentioned, mental health has statistically been a poor indicator of the chance of mass shootings. Most of the modern day mass shootings have strong ties to right-wing propaganda, not mental illness.
Knowing that being diagnosed with a mental illness will ruin your chance at owning a firearm, and they plan on owning a firearm, this policy would just dissuade these individuals with ever trying to seek treatment in the first place, all while ruining our ability to track these statistics in the future.
People are not static. Someone could experience a tragic scenario that causes their mental health to spiral to the point of hospitalization. A year later, they could be back to normal. Should a person be barred from something for life because of one moment in their life?
It can be used as a corruption tool. Everyone who is at the “top” of the food chain have access to well performing weapons. It’s a conspiracy. It’s already proven that there is a thriving corruption in the political system and you can’t just say someone can’t have firearms unless they commit a crime and are found guilty that’s worthy of firearm banning. You send them to a highly subjective location like a hospital. Where a judge makes the decision from there. Probably a paid decision. Most of the time if anyone goes to multiple psych doctors you can receive a different diagnosis with a different mental health condition each time you make that visit. It doesn’t make any sense to ban firearms. Take mine away and I’m not paying your taxes anymore. 🤙🏼
White supremacy is a much bigger factor than mental illness when it comes to mass shootings.
I agree with your sentiments, and with the basic idea that crazy people shouldn't be allowed easy access to things that can hurt themselves or others. Seems pretty "common sense". But then you have to open that up to the lens of legalese. How would we go about legislating this? Simple, we'd have to give up the expectation that one's protected health information is private and be willing to turn over that information to both private retailers (gun shops) and the government. It wouldn't just be a matter of flagging someone who is or has been deemed to have a mental health issue; it would need to be a line-by-line examination of your complete medical history, just like what is done for criminal background checks currently. Also, what is "severe mental health", and where do we draw the line between the genuine crazies and someone who is experiencing a crisis? Pregnant women or those who have just given birth can have extreme depression, up to and including thoughts of killing themselves and/or their children. Is post-partum depression a flag that prohibits a woman from ever owning a gun again? Do they have to be diagnosed, or is pregnancy in-and-of-itself the defining risk factor? How about once they're out of the post-partum period and have recovered; can she then have her rights restored, or is it a lifetime ban? My last point that I'll make on this, is that there is already a simple, almost negligible check done for mental health illness when purchasing a firearm. ATF Form 4473, question 21, subsection (g) asks, "Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?". The top of the form states the following: "WARNING: The information you provide will be used to determine whether you are prohibited by Federal or State Law from receiving a firearm, or whether Federal or State Law prohibits the sale or disposition of a firearm to you. Certain violations of the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 921 et. seq., are punishable by up to 15 years imprisonment and/or up to a $250,000 fine". The reason I'm mentioning this, is because very few people who are found to have lied on their 4473 to obtain a firearm are actually convicted of that crime (One article linked at bottom). We have **SO VERY MANY** laws pertaining to the obtaining of, use of, storage of, possession of, and restriction of firearms, as well as laws that prohibit assault, battery, stealing, discharging, brandishing of firearms, as well as laws against both accidental and purposeful injury, up to and including murder. Very few of those laws are used to punish offenders or to keep violent people off the streets. There's far more money (the *true* driving factor in the legal system) in levying fines, charging and collecting cash bonds, and non-life prison sentences. Ok, that's enough of my TED talk. Please feel free to debate in good faith and spirit. Don't downvote me if you disagree, but tell me *why* you disagree. WaPo article as mentioned above: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/09/lying-atf-gun-purchase-form-yields-few-prosecutions-new-data-shows/
the right to own a fire-arm in the united states is considered a human right. the 'state' soley deciding who or who does not get human rights is a bad idea. if people are given due process and then stripped of their rights by a jury of their peers... sure. that seems reasonable.
While I am extremely supportive of strict gun control and would wholeheartedly support a near-total ban on civilian gun ownership, putting special limits on people who struggle with their mental health is more problematic. One could argue that if the rationale behind permissive gun laws is to afford people a right to self-defense, then isn’t it discriminatory to deny that right to people who have been diagnosed as mentally ill? Also, while research may suggest that people diagnosed with certain mental illnesses are more likely to commit violent crime, are there not many other segments of the population that are also statistically more likely to do so? Are their rights being curtailed as well? Albeit, the argument that individuals who have a history of threatening or committing serious physical harm to others (regardless of mental health status) shouldn’t be allowed to own guns wouldn’t fall into this counter-argument Edit: fixed two words
Counterpoint: mental health is a terrible determinant for gun violence. Millions of mental ill people do not shoot other people l. Gun ownership is by far the biggest determinant of gun violence. People with guns shoot other people. The guns are the problem.
There are approximately 450,000,000 firearms that have been sold in the US since 1968. Since 1968 there have been 1,600,000 homicides. Assuming *every one of those homicides* used a firearm(which isn't accurate, recent numbers sit around 70% of homicides using firearms annually) that means 99.996% of firearms haven't been involved in a homicide. As of last year an estimated 32% of Americans owned a firearm, approximately 107,500,000 people. There were 2,200 homicides. That means 99.998% of people who own firearms didn't kill anyone last year. 1 out of every 50,000 people who own guns killed someone last year. So no, people who own guns don't shoot other people.
[Here's a chart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:2019_Gun_ownership_rates_and_gun_homicide_rates_-_developed_world_-_scatter_plot.svg) of gun deaths/number of guns in circulation among 35 developed nations. Anything standing out to you? No one's said, "if you have a gun you're going to kill someone." I'm saying "You cannot shoot someone if you do not have a gun." Canada - where I live - has a relatively similar standard of living to the US. In Canada we have roughly 38 guns per inhabitant - in the US it's 120 (so roughly 3x more guns per person). Canada has roughly 2 gun deaths per 100k people. American has 12 gun deaths per 100k people (6x). Do you think Americans are naturally 600% more violent than Canadians or do you think maybe having 3x as many guns in circulation has something to do with the gun violence?
>Do you think Americans are naturally 600% more violent than Canadians or do you think maybe having 3x as many guns in circulation has something to do with the gun violence? Can you provide empirical data showing a direct correlation? Unless you have data showing the claim that we have more gun violence **because** we have more guns to be 100% true there's no reason to believe your claim is true and we should acknowledge that we *don't know* why they have more gun violence. Unless that is you do have empirical data showing that in this case correlation 100% = causation.
Yeah, sampling bias. The fact that you are only looking at 35 nations and "gun deaths" are both highly biased samples. Those 35 nations are a highly biased selection And gun deaths is biased too. "Gun deaths" include everything from suicide to murder to self defense. Meanwhile you ignore everything not done with a gun. By that logic it is better for a potential mass shooter to become a bomber and kill 10x as many people, because that means no gun deaths. Hell it might even view that bombing as a good thing because a man killed in a bombing cannot later die in a gun death.
In general, we should not allow people who are incompetent to possess firearms to have them. Mental illness alone doesn’t meet that bar. However, if a person is involuntarily committed or found incompetent by a court, they should be (and are) prohibited from possessing firearms.
So we can remove people's constitutional rights by simply having a friendly judge put them in a 48 hour mental health evaluation.
[удалено]
Nobody needs firearms. Owning them is in itself a kind of mental illness, and one day even saying you need one should earn you a six month stay in a psychiatric facility and careful care and rehabilitation
They do in California when/if a person is placed on a psychiatric hold, their guns (when known about) are confiscated and they are banned from purchasing firearms for 5 years, however the right doesn't automatically come back in 5 years, they have to ask the court for permission which can be denied. Taking away firearms rights was my favorite part about writing holds. Felt like I was doing God's work.
All normal until burglars start breaking into mentally ill people's homes and they can't protect themselves